[...]
To me, that part is propaganda to support a war started over oil rights.
The Romans thought the Druids were terrorists when they decided to fight back. In particular, they wanted Boudica, Queen of the Iceni, dead--because she defended her homeland.
We invaded Iraq. And when the people there fight back, they become terrorists?
We instigated a civil war that had been brewing for a long, long time.
Sometimes I wonder if we aren't the global terrorists. The number of people we've subjugated, or funded the subjugation of (think of Guatemala in the 1980s), is nauseating. It really is.
Having said this, I'd not have suspended him on the basis of his shirt. But that particular portion of his shirt disgusts me deeply.
Please take your... views.... over to APS.com. I have no desire to begin a... pointless... argument over here.
Well, I, for one, welcome his thoughts. AS much as I disagree, it's fairly closeminded to just shoo him away.
That said, I think the argument is a little knee-jerk. THink the war was wrong, disagree with US foreign policy? FIne. I might agree. But let's not throw away the meaning of "terrorist." THe US can't be "global terrorists," it CAN be oppressors, or some other similar pejorative. Terrorists target civilians, often indiscriminately, for the specific purpose of using terror for political reasons. It is asymmetric in nature, and not focused on attrition of forces as much as pushing agenda. Granted, war, by definition pushes political agenda, but soldiers, by definition, are used against other military threats. The US cannot, with all honesty, be labeled "terrorist," unless you are some deluded fool who simply wants to throw a pejorative around. Stick to globocop, jack booted thugs, et al. Can't call the US "global terrorist," that's silly.
As for the insurgents in Iraq. Notice, they're insurgents, not terrorists. Actual Iraqis that are targeting coalition (occupation) forces are insurgent by defintion, and if you notice they are NOT called "terrorists." Earlier in the occupation, and in some cases now, foreigners (i.e. Syrians) and Al Quaeda in IRaq, are indeed called "terrorists" by definition...often targeting Iraqi civilians. We never called Germans still fighting in occupied Berlin "terrorists," or on the other side of the coin, French partisans weren't either. The IRA is terrorist. Hamas...etc...It's all about who's the target and what's the tool (i.e. is it "terror" itself, or guns and bombs?). Hijack a plane to free prisoners? terrorist. Blow up a convoy of occupation troops in your backyard? Insurgent. Invade a country and set up shop? Invader, aggressor, occupier, whatever....it's not terrorist.