The whole history of the US is filled with terrorist activities and violation of human rights. It has overthrown more governments, killed more who politically opposed. The only reason why the US has the slightest thread of anything resembling credibility in the international space, is convenient willful ("diplomatic") ignorance.

Almost every major instability and geopolitical conflict can be traced directly to US involvement and/or weapon deals.

That isn't to say that our world would be rocey without it. Just that, it is the way it is, and pretending otherwise would be puzzling. It's not a secret.

Here is a very small part of it: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_interventions_by_the...

So is every other country's history full of the same. Let's stop acting like the USA is unique in this. I will call out hypocrisy wherever I see it.

Most countries have some dark past, sure, and of course some more than others. But, in terms of consistency, extent and persistence, none come even close to the US. Just look at the Wikipedia article article I linked, and also this one: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in...

Just pointing out what is known history shouldn't be considered hypocrisy. Nor did I claim the US was alone in doing "bad stuff". So, I suppose you identify your argument as a straw man?

You are more than welcome to counter argue the actual point, by suggesting a present day contender.

Sure the US has instigated plenty of crap but your comment is hyperbolic to the point of insanity and belittles damn near every regional power on the globe.

People are perfectly capable of starting wars with each other without the help of the US and if these people truly need help getting to the point of shooting each other the US is not the only nation with an intelligence agency capable of helping them out.

I was thinking the idea that the US are “helping people” was debunked since the war in Iraq.

The only way that was first debunked by the war in Iraq would be if people picked up a world history book that started with the war in Iraq. I cannot think of an exception where the US didn't chose their interest over a democratically elected governance.

so the conflicts the US instigated were inevitable, and the US might as well have gotten involved for its own benefit? I hope this is not what you're saying but it sure sounds like it is.

Pretty sure the world would be peaceful, holding hands and singing kumbaya without the US, especially Latin America.

I don't get the struggle. They are and have probably always been a terrorist organisation by anyone's definition.

Seeing how the FBI have been inspiring, training and generally helping out with lawfare operations and "soft"-coups around the globe, they don't have much of an upper hand either!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Condor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Hemisphere_Institute_f...

https://theintercept.com/2019/06/09/brazil-archive-operation... https://nacla.org/news/2019/07/01/lawfare-unmasked-brazil https://www.brasilwire.com/folha-brazilian-lawmakers-fbi-and... https://www.brasilwire.com/how-fbi-controlled-operation-topp...

The common definition of terrorism conveniently explicitly excludes governmental activity.

I wonder who thought that up?

That's a pretty poor definition, but many common ones are. For me the key component of terrorism is the terror part, it's the use of violence to intimidate a population.

So for example if you are targeting specific people or organisations, or infrastructure as targets due to their activities or capabilities then the goal is functional. You are trying to destroy or damage an asset or capability, any intimidation is incidental. Terrorism is where it's the fear itself that's the weapon.

Yep, that does mean some governmental operations count. Shock and Awe comes dangerously close, if the intended target of the S&A is a civilian population.

Because it's not designated as one, duh.

Someone should really look in to that....