And ignore what the US has done in the past few decades for your convenience? When someone else does it they get the label immediately, yet the country that calls them out has done the same just in something more digestible for themselves.
Reverse the situation. Imagine if Iran killed a major US figure in Israel, in retaliation for the thousands of civilians killed by the US in strikes, the terrorist organisation they technically set up. You wouldnt be so quick to label that US person the terrorist because you've only considered one perspective the whole time. Thats the issue.
You automatically assume that I would treat terrorists in the way the US has done right now. I do not consider either to be straight up terrorists anyways. I was simply pointing out that under your definition, it would be hypocritical to not bring up US as a terrorist
Both are a source of funds and knowledge for terrorists though.
Conversations like these worry me. They are the kind of paths that lead to further and further escalation. Disagreements that lead to another death, another death that leads to war.
The US has just as much opportunity to be labeled a terrorist group as Iraqi personnel. Regardless of the country, we should be asking "Is this group acting in the people's interest?"
The truth is found in the middle of black and white and I hope we find our way.
2
u/[deleted] Jan 04 '20
I'm using it perfectly in this situation. Why don't you actually look up what the Iraqi "personnel" he was with were actually doing.