Summary: Putting in context the cycle of violence which the West uses to justify indefinitely detaining the domestic population, assassinating parts of it, and spying on everyone (even domestically, using loopholes)

TERRORISM is a real problem, although it's exaggerated and a lot of it is the fault of the alleging victim. In Syria, for example, terrorists have been funded and assisted by the West for quite some time [1] in order to change the region [2] and, in that regard, some Western leaders can be accused of crimes similar to Assad's [3].

Currently, the West helps recruitment of what it labels "terrorists" by illegally and unethically killing people without trial [4], expanding the scope of the kill lists [5], and then facing backlash even from CIA-bribed allies like Hamid Karzai [6] (reigning over a post-invasion country [7]). Now that Taliban leaders are being assassinated by CIA drones even when they try to establish peace [8] we should remember that a lot of it started when the CIA sent huge piles of weapons for the same people -- including Obama Bin Laden -- to fight the Soviets. Contrary to what officials claimed at the time, this was provocation against the Soviets, who had not invaded Afghanistan. People who were responsible for this now admit this as well.

The bottom line is that terrorism is often blowback and in order to stop blowback you cannot just assassinate more and more people, or else you end up looking no better than Assad and people turn against you. Illegal invasions by Western armies kill per year more than Assad killed overall.

"Terrorism" is a very big deal because those in power exploit it in order to crush dissent, journalism, activism, etc. Just watch today's article, "British news staff may face terrorism charges over Snowden leaks" [9]. Also remember that Nelson Mandela was labelled "terrorist" by the US until 2008 and UK politicians such as those run the country right now called for his execution [10]. "Terrorism" no longer means what it used to mean. It's an excuse, it's a pretext, it's a label to be used for political agenda. ⬆

Related/contextual items from the news:

1. Congress Backs Terrorists In Syria … Then Says We Need NSA Spying Because There are Terrorists In Syria

   The civil war in Syria started in March 2011. And see this.
   
   However, the U.S. has been funding the Syrian opposition since 2006 … and arming the opposition since 2007. (In reality, the U.S. and Britain considered attacking Syrians and then blaming it on the Syrian government as an excuse for regime change … 50 years ago (the U.S. just admitted that they did this to Iran) . And the U.S. has been planning regime change in Syria for 20 years straight. And see this.)
   
   The New York Times, (and here and here) , Wall Street Journal, USA Today, CNN, McClatchy (and here), AP, Time, Reuters, BBC, the Independent, the Telegraph, Agence France-Presse, Asia Times, and the Star (and here) confirm that supporting the rebels means supporting Al Qaeda and two other terrorist groups.
   
   Indeed, the the New York Times has reported that virtually all of the rebel fighters are Al Qaeda terrorists.





2. Primary U.S. Goal in Syria is to Protect Israel

   Despite media pundits and political elites’ focus on “democracy versus dictatorship” and the international community’s “responsibility” to avert the “humanitarian crisis” in Syria, Nicola Nasser reports for Global Research that the real aim of US intervention in Syria was to protect the security of its ally, Israel.





3. Obama 'Just As Guilty As Assad'





4. Eugene Robinson Gets it Wrong on Drones

   The problems begin right at the top, where Robinson begins by conceding that “U.S. drone attacks in Afghanistan, Pakistan and other countries may be militarily effective.” But, he asserts, “they are killing innocent civilians in a way that is obscene and immoral. I’m afraid that ignoring this ugly fact makes Americans complicit in murder.” Robinson does not compare the civilian deaths from drone strikes with those likely from other military options available to US forces to see whether they would be more or less “obscene and immoral”—or whether, indeed, drones might be the least bad option in terms of civilian casualties. He simply asserts that the use of a weapon that kills civilians as drones do makes us complicit in murder.
   
   





5. Obama war chiefs widen drone kill box

   The Pentagon has loosened its guidelines on avoiding civilian casualties during drone strikes, modifying instructions from requiring military personnel to “ensure” civilians are not targeted to encouraging service members to “avoid targeting” civilians.





6. Karzai accuses U.S. of civilian deaths in November drone strike

   Afghan President Hamid Karzai has again accused the United States of killing civilians in a drone airstrike, this time in a Nov. 20 attack on a border area between two eastern provinces where Taliban insurgents maintain strongholds. In a statement released on his presidential website late Wednesday night, Karzai condemned the United States for an alleged drone strike that he said killed seven civilians, including women and children, in Nuristan province on the border with Kunar province near the Pakistan frontier.





7. Awfulness of Handling the Dead and Wounded GIs from the Afghan War

   Jones touches on the process involved with the military and how they cover up the deaths of soldiers...





8. US drones learn to kill on Talibs

   The murder by a drone of a Taliban leader conducting peace negotiations with Islamabad has caused widespread protests in Pakistan. Fearing for the lives of its truckers, the U.S. has stopped the export of U.S. military cargo from Afghanistan through Pakistan. The U.S. denies that the use of drones is a violation of the international law.





9. British news staff may face terrorism charges over Snowden leaks





10. Just remember what many Tories thought of Nelson Mandela in the apartheid years

    Soon we will be inundated with heartfelt speeches – but we mustn't let those who opposed Mandela's struggle pretend they didn't