Does anyone think its hypocritical that we are fighting Terrorism overseas
@vicouspoultry (21)
United States
July 15, 2007 1:30pm CST
When we in fact were terrorists 230 years ago in the eyes of the British. We fought very similarly to the way the Terrorists now a days did because of the unfair treatment the British laid on us. An example was the Boston Tea Party, or Lexington and Concord, it is very easy to call those two acts, Acts of Terrorism. The Terrorists overseas are fighting America not because of our freedoms but because of the Imperial nature we have displayed the Middle East. We put the lives and well being of the residents of the Middle East for money. For instance when we arrested Iran;s democratically elected leader Mohammad Mossedeq and replaced him the the unpopular Shah that ran Iran with an Iron Fist, just because Mossedeq wanted to give Iranians a share of the oil revenue by nationalizing British Petroleum.
4 people like this
6 responses
@suspenseful (40193)
• Canada
15 Jul 07
You're just a kid. You should study history. Did your ancestors blow up the towns of the British sympathizers or use innocent people as shields? Hid in farmhouses and ambushed people, poisoned waters, had their little children blow themselves up or stuff like that? First of all, Iran or as it was Persia was always ruled as a kingdom until recently. The Shah was a modern version of the original Persian king. If it had been a republic or democracy from the beginning, then there would be a complaint. In the Boston Tea Party, no British officer or soldier or civilian was thrown overboard. At Lexington or Concord, the soldiers were fighting soldiers. They did not turn their muskets on the citizens. Research the difference between terrorism and revolution. A terrorist destroys and kills to destroy democracy, people rise in revolution against tyranny because they want democracy. At that time, Britain was ruled by a mad king and subject to his whims. He put unjust laws on America. Would you have wished you should have been under the rule of a maniac then?
2 people like this
@angelicEmu (1311)
•
15 Jul 07
The nature of the weapons used in terrorism has changed, as has technology, but it's down to the American government's sponsorship of terrorist groups all over the world that terrorism has such resources, and it's down to America's tyrannical empirical bully-boy attitude to foreign governments, that there's such outrage and resentment against your government, in the rest of the world. And I'd think about pots and kettles when you start bandying around the idea of a whimsical maniac ruling America. Just how democratic is YOUR country's election process, when most of your country voted against George W back in 2000?! I'm not saying that the British "democratic" process is any fairer - fewer than 40% of our population voted for the Labour Party at our last election, yet they still got into power again. You're the one who's a kid - Democracy may be your magical trigger-word, but it's not flawless, and therefore doesn't warrant blind idealism. A healthy dose of realism wouldn't do you any harm mate! Life is as it is, all governments are corrupt in some way or another, and yours is one of the worst for telling other countries how to do things. Perhaps your leaders should keep their money-grabbing paws out of other countries' business, instead of meddling, de-stabilising the middle-east, then portraying themselves as the moral arbiters of the world.
1 person likes this
@4ftfingers (1310)
•
16 Jul 07
Mate you are exactly right. Everything you say on this page is how I feel. Ignore those that have to lower themselves to personal attacks, age doesn't make a difference, you have the gift of being able to look at things objectively, a lot of people don't have that and don't understand it.
@Netsbridge (3253)
• United States
18 Jul 07
When people are blinded by power and greed, they always seem to be void of reason and logic.
@piggyxoxo (169)
• Canada
15 Jul 07
i thought from the very beginning that this war is about oil and money. lives have been lost on both sides just to benefit the wealthier uppercrust. well its the people of the united states who elected their government, if war is what the US population wants then war is what they will get :-(
@beckish (641)
• United States
16 Jul 07
I agree that the war is based on oil and money. I don't think the US population wants war though - the population is just unable to control the government. Our government has apparently forgotten that it is supposed to do what the people want. Somehow we need to remind them of that. Vote wisely, everyone!
@Whisp1976 (488)
• United States
16 Jul 07
I can see your point, because I have watched documentaries like "Why We Fight." I think everybody here in the US should have to watch that particular documentary. Somebody called you a kid. Well, for a "kid" you seem rather smart to me.
1 person likes this
@lt41002 (56)
• United States
16 Jul 07
The "terrorism" back then and the terrorism now are different. Back then, we dumped tea into harbors, now they kill women and children. I do think that the US commits acts of terrorism though. Our soldiers have been killing innocent people, we assassinate leaders, etc.
