Main issue basically by Amy: Is “terrorist” the new catch-all word for countries that our President thinks we should invade?
Like “communist” and “socialist” and “Nazi,” is “terrorist” now a word that people don’t ACTUALLY understand but use to indicate something generally “anti-American”?
Definitely things to know about Is “terrorist” the new catch-all word for countries that our President thinks we should invade? you will really should resolve dilemmas on his or her. With some luck , it will help to in many ways… creating everything greater. Desiring things to know about Is “terrorist” the new catch-all word for countries that our President thinks we should invade? may be a strategy when you need it.
Solution:
Answer by East Coaster
Hmm, I don’t know. what word did Obama use for Pakistan when he talked about Nuking them?
Answer by CHARITY G
I think most people understand . . . The French don’t like us but you never hear Americans calling them terrorists.
Answer by Kayla F
You hit it right on the head.
Answer by whip
terrorists are everywhere.you can’t say that he wants to start another war.he didn’t start this one.98 united states senators did.with out them saying to do it ,he can’t.
Answer by sugarbritches
yes
Answer by NONAME
To answer your question;
No, I prefer to use secular progressive for the word terrorist.
Answer by It’s That Guy
Yes. For years Communism justified our meddling in other countries’ politics, bombing and invading them when CIA dirty tricks didn’t work. Then the Soviet Union collapsed and for a while conservatives didn’t know what to do. Then 9/11 happened and the Bush administration realized the could use the threat of terrorism to do whatever they wanted in the world, including invading two countries that had nothing to do with it, and now a third.
Bush is doing the same thing with Iran he did with Iraq. He said they had nuclear weapons, and it turned out they didn’t. He said they were BUILDING nuclear weapons and it turned out they weren’t. NOW he says they are suborning terrorism, which of course they’re not. Just as with Iraq, whenever an excuse is shot down he trots out another one. And just as with Iraq, they are all lies.
Answer by TheDude
yes it is but unless you agree with the spouters of rhetoric you are labeled as anti-American also
Answer by Condor
Word terrorists only applies to oil rich countries. Somehow all of a sudden all our enemies are oil rich countries. Only in oil rich countries people are “oppressed”, only in oil rich countries are “evil dictatorship governments” and only oil rich countries “posses threat” to the US. As a result our “enemies” are Iraq, Iran and Venezuela which “sponsor terrorism” and which want to take away “our freedom” or whatever left of it if anything.
Answer by A A
Sort of, parents in grocery stores call their children terrorists when they start screaming and kicking when they cannot have their way.
Answer by Opinionatedkitten
Yes.
Also, anyone in the Middle East who opposes the policies of the U.S.
Answer by Blah Blah
The term “terrorist” typically describes an entity that takes up arms against the status quo. With that description, the American colonists were terrorists against the British. The Indians were terrorists toward the early European settlers in America.
We have been terrorists in many countries for many years, funding insurgent groups in order to destabilize governments that we don’t agree with. To be specific, we are now acting as a terrorist in Iran by funding as many as four insurgent groups there. What would we feel about another country doing something similar here?
And there are terrorists that attack us and others. Perpetrating terror creates more terror. This needs to end at some point, but the politics of the past 1/2 century has created this condition… Since 1900, our country shifted from being isolationist, to strongly defending interests through imperialism, to meddling worldwide in many countries.
Just listen to the candidates regarding Pakistan. They say that Musharaff needs to do this or that to remain in our good company… do we select the leadership, or does a democratic Pakistan? It is not even a secret anymore… the vocabulary no longer hides what occurs. Foreign leaders do what we want in order to receive a check. Don’t do what we want, you don’t get the check.. or worse, we kill you or fund an insurgent group to take over.
Then what happens? We expect something from the new insurgent group that comes into power. Why else would be fund their takeover? For democracy? For justice? No, we expect something economic in return. And when we hold that new power accountable to give us something in return for our assistance, they will turn on us, sometimes with the arms we provided. Or they will go to our enemies and form an alliance against us. Now, in that scenario, who is just and who is not? It isn’t clear.
Isn’t this what happened when our nation was formed? The American colonies fought an expensive war against the French. Great Britain spent a lot of money to help the colonies win, obviously in order to preserve the economic benefits of the New World. And when the French were defeated, the British looked to repay the cost of the war. So they taxed the colonies. The “taxation without representation” resulted ultimately in the American Revolution (were we terrorists or ingrates?) where we turned back to the French for support to help us defeat the British rather than repay them for helping us defeat the French in the first place. Confusing? Isn’t this what we see continuously?
If we allowed for free trade, didn’t try to monetize our military, didn’t try to disingenuously create democracy worldwide, and didn’t attempt to spread our views worldwide, then we could be on track for some positive global changes changes and a reduction in terror.
I can’t blame many countries for rejecting some of the cultural influences from the U.S. I have young children in the U.S. and I am trying to shield them from the negative influences as well. When I hear people, as well as the President, say something as silly as “people attack us because of our liberty,” I cringe. I’m sure many abroad say, “Fine, have your McDonald’s french fries, nintendo, sexploitation of children and teenagers, Hollywood pablum, cigarettes, diet coke, exposed underwear, muffin tops, and Miley Cyrus. We don’t want that anyway. We just want to be left alone… don’t push your consumption society on us. We are quite alright as we are. P.S. – the oil is ours.”
Answer by truth seeker
The United States has a defense budget that is equal to all of he other countries in the world combined. We can’t keep funneling that money to corporations unless we have an enemy. What better enemy to have than a “terrorist”…. Even better than naming countries. There is no “face” to put on a terrorist…. they can be anyone… Bush hit the jackpot when he came up with the “war on terror”…… Ironically, there are terrorists and if Bush actually used our money and troops to actually fight actual terrorist, he might actually have made a difference.
Answer by Jackie Oh!
Bush is like the boy who cried wolf only his cry is “terrorist.”
Notice our so called allies aren’t beating their chests or anything as Bush’s rhetoric about Iran gets louder and louder.
They are as sick of him as we are.
Answer by Perfect Sense
Amy, please try to concentrate on what I am about to say. Nazi and communists regimes enslaved and slaughtered tens of millions of innocent human beings. Their crimes against humanity went far beyond the pale of “something generally anti-American.” We liberated (lefties would say “invaded and occupied”) Europe in 1945, and convinced the communist to “tear down this wall” in 1989. Today radical Islam poses an even more insidious threat than communism and Nazism ever did. What is there to “ACTUALLY understand” about a theology which demands Western civilization return to the 7th century? Why don’t you ask Daniel Pearl if the word “terrorist” is some invention of the Bush administration. (Oh gee, Amy. That is going to be hard to do because a “terrorist” decapitated him.) Why don’t you ask women from the Middle East who have had their genitals mutilated, can’t drive or go to school, and wear a burka all day, if “terrorists” is merely a politically convenient “catch-all word” for Arab men we don’t understand.
Answer by Your account is suspended
no its not, but nice pointed question. Your question sounds like you support the terrorists.
Answer by Richard G
Terrorism means disagreeing with Bush and asking to be liberated by violence!
Figure out much better?
Add your trusty answer to the comments!
OMG Terrorists do the Harlem Shake!! Hope you enjoy this, one of my favorite now, the ending was so awesome 
Also it is a joke so dont take it seriously! F…
Mortars Hidden in a Terrorist’s Home
Picture courtesy of Mortars Hidden in a Terrorist’s Home
11/26/2002
IDF forces demolished the home of Muhammad Abu Huli, a terrorist responsible for the deadly shooting attack in the northern part of Gush Katif area where an IDF soldier was killed. The terrorist is also responsible for the firing of mortars and anti-tank missiles. During scans in his house, soldiers found an explosives laboratory, mortars and propagandist materials.
New catch “terrorists” – we think every president in the country for the word should invade?