Virtually all of my positions contradict those of the Taliban and other Islamist organizations or any movement that primarily uses violence to make social change. I have no problem with prosecuting all criminals who commit violent acts, no matter their reasons.
Calling me a terrorist sympathizer is merely a way to try to silence or ignore me because the historic facts I brought up make you uncomfortable because they challenge your image of a righteous and innocent USA and Europe. My goal is to challenge the incorrect belief that the past and present policies and actions of the West have no impact on the distrust and hostility many Muslims have towards western intervention in the Muslim world. I doubt many people with a reasonable amount of knowledge about the West's actual behavior in the middle east and elsewhere would accept your position, which I believe is based on lack of historic knowledge.
For example do you know about this?
"During World War II, Iran was once again subject to British and Russian occupation.
In 1951, after the assassination of prime minister Ali Razmara, Dr. Mohammad Mosaddegh was elected prime minister by a parliamentary vote which was then ratified by the Shah. As prime minister, Mosaddegh became enormously popular in Iran after he nationalized Iran's petroleum industry and oil reserves. In response, the British government, headed by Winston Churchill, embargoed Iranian oil and successfully enlisted the United States to join in a plot to depose the democratically elected government of Mosaddegh. In 1953 US President Dwight D. Eisenhower authorized Operation Ajax. The operation, supported by the Shah, was successful, and Mosaddegh was arrested on 19 August 1953. The coup was the first time the US had openly overthrown an elected, civilian government of another sovereign state.
The Shah visits the Kharg petrochemical complex, 1970
After Operation Ajax, Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi favoured American and British oil interests and his rule became increasingly autocratic."