When your only response to a thread about some nutjob terrorist killing 50 people is to criticize the US, yes, it's a valid conclusion that at a minimum you could give a rats ass about terrorism, or more likely, that you blame it on the US and not the people who actually did it.
I was responding to someone else with what I said. Someone else brought up the body count issue.
What is interesting is that terrorism is an inherently political issue. Politics was intimately tied to the suicide bomber piece of shit, and yet the only response that is apparently acceptable in this thread is either:
A. Mooselman bad!
B. How terrible!
C. Why can't we all get along?
I'd much rather have a conversation with people that isn't limited to simply saying "bummer, dude", and unfortunately, that includes politics. US Empire is still a taboo and uncomfortable subject, so I'm not surprised that any type of criticism meets with instantaneous "he's a moron!" and "he supports terrorism!", as you can read right here in this here thread.
Sure, because not playing the role of empire and letting the locals sort it out for themselves works so great elsewhere like Africa.
So, you think that US involvement in the middle east and near east over the past 50 years have had a positive effect? How well is European and African involvement in Africa working out?
Sometimes you can't go picking the winners and losers. Especially when governments end up picking winners based on how cheaply the winners will price their labor and natural resources for businesses friendly with the picking government. A, free market argument, really.
Facebook
Twitter