Tweet
You think the US is a terrorist country...
Aside from the question as to whether or not it is and assuming O'Reilly thinks patriotism is good, I have a couple questions:
1) Does this mean the Afghans, Iraqis and Germans who supported the Taliban, Saddam and Hitler were patriots?
2) If so, doesn't this make O'Reilly's definition ridiculous from a moral point of view?
Now as to whether or not the US is a terrorist nation, one man's freedom fighter is often another man's terrorist. For example, Reagan supported the Contras and even compared them with the Founding Fathers calling them "freedom fighters". But my knowledge of the Contras, albeit somewhat limited, leads me to believe they were in fact terrorists. They avoided direct battles with the Sandanistas instead opting for guerilla warfare which primarily involved attacking defenseless villages killing farmers, teachers, health care providers, etc... The result of ~8 years of this was to pressure the general populace into voting for a government that found some favor with the Contras in 1988 as opposed to the Ortegas and Sandanistas.
The irony is that while many in the GOP claim the Nicaraguan election in 1988 was "free", it was in fact a coerced vote - continue supporting the Sandanistas and face more terrorism or support the Sandinastas' opposition and bring it to an end. Who were the Contras if not the ruling elite, police and military under the previous dictators - the Somozas? Furthermore, US support for the Contras had a similar effect to what happened in Spain's election just after the Madrid bombings. A campaign of terror brought about a regime change... This seems to have been a common tactic of US foreign policy during the cold war...
Democrats and Republicans,
on you 
Aside from the question as to whether or not it is and assuming O'Reilly thinks patriotism is good, I have a couple questions:
1) Does this mean the Afghans, Iraqis and Germans who supported the Taliban, Saddam and Hitler were patriots?
2) If so, doesn't this make O'Reilly's definition ridiculous from a moral point of view?
Now as to whether or not the US is a terrorist nation, one man's freedom fighter is often another man's terrorist. For example, Reagan supported the Contras and even compared them with the Founding Fathers calling them "freedom fighters". But my knowledge of the Contras, albeit somewhat limited, leads me to believe they were in fact terrorists. They avoided direct battles with the Sandanistas instead opting for guerilla warfare which primarily involved attacking defenseless villages killing farmers, teachers, health care providers, etc... The result of ~8 years of this was to pressure the general populace into voting for a government that found some favor with the Contras in 1988 as opposed to the Ortegas and Sandanistas.
The irony is that while many in the GOP claim the Nicaraguan election in 1988 was "free", it was in fact a coerced vote - continue supporting the Sandanistas and face more terrorism or support the Sandinastas' opposition and bring it to an end. Who were the Contras if not the ruling elite, police and military under the previous dictators - the Somozas? Furthermore, US support for the Contras had a similar effect to what happened in Spain's election just after the Madrid bombings. A campaign of terror brought about a regime change... This seems to have been a common tactic of US foreign policy during the cold war...
Democrats and Republicans,
on you
Personally, I tend to believe that those who deliberately kill innocent civilians aren't particularly interested freedom and those who trample on human rights aren't the best people to try defending them. The choice of means indicates that they are forerunners of tyranny.
Comment