Extremely possible and is most likely the truth. But it never stops the conspiracy wacko from thinking otherwise.Originally Posted by English assassin
Given that Saddam practiced terror everyday on his citizens through the use of his governmental thugs - he most likely kept everyone in extreme fear and unable to conduct such actions. Or that not all of these attacks are not terrorist attacks - but insurgents striking at legimate political and military targets. With a small precentage of the attacks actual suicidial terror bombings. One only has to look at the data to draw their own conclusions. Some attacks are most definetly terror attacks from certain terrorist group.IMHO it is obvious that America in particular persues policies that make terrorism more likely. (Anyone who would deny that would have to explain why Iraq, a country previously untroubled by terrorist attacks, is now experiencing daily suicide bombings). Furthermore the fact of terrorism is obviously very handy to those who want to remove American (and British) freedoms, increase the military budget and so on.
Don't agree with the wording - but I will agree with your sentiment.But to argue that America deliberately chooses to pursue those policies because her leaders see it as a way to reduce the Amercian people to serfs is quite a leap. They might be quite happy about the serfdom but i don't think they are actively and deliberately causing the terrorism as a way to achieve it. 9 times in ten its stupidity, not conspiracy, in my experience.
No they are not - in fact in a lot of ways they are worse.Incidentally pursusing policies that make terrorism more likely is not invariably a bad thing. In 1939 the UK pursued a policy that made a full scale attack by the nazi war machine more likely, but that didn't make it the wrong thing to do. The Islamofascists strike me as not much nicer than the nazi regime.
Bookmarks