Comments by "" (@HigherPlanes) on "Джейсон Маккью о терроризме как несостоявшемся брэнде" video.

  1. And this is the argument for Iraq: With a one world superpower you no longer need international law. Which is why you can have preemptive war in Iraq, which everyone knows violated every form of international law. The second part is that because now you're a superpower you use military force to shape the world the way you think it should be. In other words, they're saying, “we won't be able to get the American people behind this unless we have another Pearl Harbor.” And then 911 came.
    1
  2. We can agree or disagree, but because politicians do everything in secrecy and what works its way down through the media is what they want us to know, I have to rely on common sense to tell me that "suspicion" of nuclear armament isn't enough to to get you a war, but an attack on US territory kind of gets the ball rollin' in that department, don't you think? I'm not from the united states so I tend to look at things more clearly.
    1
  3. And your chances of being killed by a terrorist are almost non-existent. Like you said, terrorism is a US-made farce with no real enemy. How about fighting homelessness which is a REAL problem and affects millions of people.
    1
  4. What does my age have to do with any of this? Like I'm not capable of connecting the dots because I'm not a certain age or wasn't born here? Give me a break. The ball may have been rolling in Iraq since the early 90's, but like I mentioned earlier, the US needed another pearl harbor to get the American people behind the Iraq war. It was convenient. Don't be so naive about US policy.
    1
  5. If you're talking about the comment that stars with "However..." I read it.
    1
  6. If you don't know that US politicians are the real terrorists then you haven't been paying attention. We went into the Iraq war under the pretense of "putting an end to weapons of mass destruction." My memory is kind of fuzzy, but who was it again that dropped the first nuclear weapon in a foreign land?
    1
  7. I guess we'll never know.
    1
  8. yeah, roughly 100,000 lives would have been saved.
    1
  9. You can call me what you like, but I deal with the cold hard facts. they dropped the bomb. It's not the place of the US to occupy these countries, it's in their self-interest that they do so. And If you think US foreign relations goes to war in the interest of oppressed women overseas...I don't know what to say other than you're naive as hell. US politicians don't care about their own citizens, son, why would they care about far away oppressed women. Get real.
    1