Thread: Western democracy supports any kind of terrorist action against itself ?

Originally Posted by Occam's Razor

It's not CT to look at the facts.
It's not CT to look at historical constants in relation to unchanging human nature.
It's not CT to heed the founders (who actually lived under tyranny, as did 2400 generations before them) warning to remain always vigilant and skeptical of your gov't.
It's not CT to acknowledge that the U.S. has overthrown more democratically elected governments, installed and supported more brutal dictators than any other (maybe all other) country.
It's not CT to acknowledge that before the rise of the military industrial complex, we were reluctant to go to war but won them decisively when we did.. We haven't won a war since the rise of the MIC.
It's not CT to say that if we have private banks too big to fail in the name of investor profits, then we certainly have an MIC too big for peace.
It's not CT to say there is no profit in peace, and it's the unrestrained capital model that a company must grow unrestrained.

This is the factual context. No CT needed.

I literally agree with the entirety of your post. There's an important distinction between opponents of the military industrial complex and conspiracy theorists.

Originally Posted by SocialDemocrat

I literally agree with the entirety of your post. There's an important distinction between opponents of the military industrial complex and conspiracy theorists.

you were definitly disagreeing with this kind of thought in your post .

Originally Posted by Occam's Razor

It's not CT to look at the facts.
It's not CT to look at historical constants in relation to unchanging human nature.
It's not CT to heed the founders (who actually lived under tyranny, as did 2400 generations before them) warning to remain always vigilant and skeptical of your gov't.
It's not CT to acknowledge that the U.S. has overthrown more democratically elected governments, installed and supported more brutal dictators than any other (maybe all other) country.
It's not CT to acknowledge that before the rise of the military industrial complex, we were reluctant to go to war but won them decisively when we did.. We haven't won a war since the rise of the MIC.
It's not CT to say that if we have private banks too big to fail in the name of investor profits, then we certainly have an MIC too big for peace.
It's not CT to say there is no profit in peace, and it's the unrestrained capital model that a company must grow unrestrained.

This is the factual context. No CT needed.

Originally Posted by SocialDemocrat

I'm not sure I understand the question the way it is phrased, but if it is whether or not western democracies such as the United States sponsor terrorism in order to promote war in response, then obviously not. I don't have any respect for outrageous conspiracy theories. "9/11 was an inside job" and similar ramblings are utter nonsense.

he is defending something you disagree

Originally Posted by Medusa

he is defending something you disagree

What part of Occam's post suggest that the United States actually sponsors terrorism to promote war in response?