Islamic terrorism the new Soviet Union, how empires invent enemies

You just repeated what I said about Agamemnon, so what's the big idea? Onto your next "point" you say the Romans had a superior culture? Well sorry to disappoint you but the Romans stole the mythological believes of the Greek that's why Virgil begins the Aenid with the fall of troy, to trace the origins of Rome back to Troy, naming a GREEK hero Aeneas from troy as the founder of Rome. Not to mention, their philosophy, science and astronomy were all copied from the Greeks which means that they had almost no cultural developments themselves. If by Superior you mean a culture that constructed Coliseums to use prisoners as entertainment, causing the death of 400,000 people, a culture that was dominated by crazy emperors who caused wars upon sheer ambition like Caligula, then sure the idiot is me. The civilisations that set the foundations for "free speech" was Greece and not Rome. Besides, your ignorance on the Roman political system simply amuses me. You see little one, you speak of freedom in a society that was divided into two classes, the Patricius (in latin) and the Prole, had several slaves and went into countless civil wars that were waged at the cost of losing thousands of innocent lives (some 40000 romans died during the civil war that followed after Julius Cesar was stabbed 23 times by the senate) because of the ambition of those who wanted rome to be a republic and of those who wanted to have an emperor. If that's your definition of an advanced society then boy you are an idiot or you are completely ignorant of history. I'm not saying Islam is a peaceful religion. Its true that their fanaticism justifies some horrible acts against liberty but that doesn't mean that they are not used in the international arena to justify all kinds of wars. For example, Saddam Hussein was involved with the Baath and this "insurgent" group was in turned involved with the CIA. Saddam came to power with the approval of the USA and for 40 long years all the human right violations he committed went completely unnoticed. It was when he became a threat to the USA that he was immediately recognised as a dictator, an enemy of democracy. The position I want to defend is that the USA and its allies, have taken advantage of various terrorist attacks that have occurred in recent times, such as 9/11, the 2005 london bombings and the tragedy that took place in Nice, France, to ignite hatred, racism and fanatical nationalism against the middle east, in order to justify a military response that is distorted by politicians who make it seem as a justifiable intervention in the name of democracy, when in reality, these genocidal invasions and indiscriminate air-strikes, are nothing but savage manifestations of western terrorism which leaves far more victims than all the previously mentioned Islamic attacks combined. For example, the Obama administration in 2016 dropped 26171 bombs, 12192 in Syria alone, if you calculate the number of casualties from these air bombings which affect civilians and not ISIS fighters at it is often framed by the media (proof of this is the fact that the Syrian minister openly blamed french air-forces for causing the death of 100 civilians near the city of Manbij or the 26000 civilian deaths that resulted from the war in Afghanistan) it becomes clear, that the number of victims that have perished beneath the crows of "democracy", beneath the bombs of "civilised" countries that fight for freedom by killing innocent people, is far greater than the number of victims from the various attacks attributed to ISIS and even those that Osama Bin Laden was responsible for. The 9/11 casualties were numbered at around 2996 people, the number of people killed during the Iraq war is 112,667"123,284 according to the Iraq body count project. If you add up the number of deaths caused by the Afghanistan war, by the Iraq war, by the Libyan conflict, they easily surpass the number of deaths so far caused in Europe and the USA by Isis and Al-Qaeda. This means that the logic of the USA is to combat terrorism, a frightening form of religiously justified war that is brought directly upon the innocent with an even larger scale of destruction and bloodshed. If ISIS kills thirty innocent people, Nato kills five hundred. Furthermore, it is interesting that the USA has responded so fiercely with dictators such as Sadam hussein, Gadaffi and others but it kept silent during the dictatorships of Pinochet, of Videla and Batista in south america. When a right-wing government that is faithful to Western interests commits atrocities such as torture and mass-murder, the USA and its allies allow it to do so, as long as it fights communism, promotes neo-liberal slavery and makes sure that foreign companies and multinationals drain it's country's resources. The consequences of invading middle-eastern countries, far beyond the removal of certain figures of power that were gripped by the media to create general hatred and a strong ignorance that makes certain people favour these so called "interventions" is the creation of torture-prisons such as Abu ghraib, the destruction of social infrastructure, the devaluation of economy and the sorrow of a nation ripped apart by bombs and bullets. Hundreds of thousands of innocent people have died victims of this war against terror. Here are a few basic questions: 1) How come, the USA funded the Taliban to fight off the Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan? Its been proven that the USA aliened itself with EXTREME islam during the cold war, because on one side, the soviet Union attempted to spread communism in Latin america which the USA managed to stop by funding dictators such as Pinochet to take down Allende and other democratically elected presidents and on the other side of the world, the USA were already using islam as a tool to fence off the influence of Russia. 2) Why does the United states attack Arabian dictators such as Gadaffi and Hussein but did nothing to stop Latin American dictators? 3) How come, the USA funded the taliban to fight off the Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan? The director of the National Security Agency under Ronald Reagan, General William Odom recently remarked, "by any measure the U.S. has long used terrorism. In 1978-79 the Senate was trying to pass a law against international terrorism " in every version they produced, the lawyers said the U.S. would be in violation." During the 1970R42;s the CIA used the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt as a barrier, both to thwart Soviet expansion and prevent the spread of Marxist ideology among the Arab masses. The United States also openly supported Sarekat Islam against Sukarno in Indonesia, and supported the Jamaat-e-Islami terror group against Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto in Pakistan. Last but certainly not least, there is Al Qaeda. Lest we forget, the CIA gave birth to Osama Bin Laden and breastfed his organization during the 1980R42;s. Former British Foreign Secretary, Robin Cook, told the House of Commons that Al Qaeda was unquestionably a product of Western intelligence agencies. Mr. Cook explained that Al Qaeda, which literally means an abbreviation of "the database" in Arabic, was originally the computer database of the thousands of Islamist extremists, who were trained by the CIA and funded by the Saudis, in order to defeat the Russians in Afghanistan. America"s relationship with Al Qaeda has always been a love-hate affair. Depending on whether a particular Al Qaeda terrorist group in a given region furthers American interests or not, the U.S. State Department either funds or aggressively targets that terrorist group. Even as American foreign policy makers claim to oppose Muslim extremism, they knowingly foment it as a weapon of foreign policy. The Islamic State is its latest weapon that, much like Al Qaeda, is certainly backfiring. ISIS recently rose to international prominence after its thugs began beheading American journalists. Now the terrorist group controls an area the size of the United Kingdom. In order to understand why the Islamic State has grown and flourished so quickly, one has to take a look at the organization"s American-backed roots. The 2003 American invasion and occupation of Iraq created the pre-conditions for radical Sunni groups, like ISIS, to take root. America, rather unwisely, destroyed Saddam Hussein"s secular state machinery and replaced it with a predominantly Shiite administration. The U.S. occupation caused vast unemployment in Sunni areas, by rejecting socialism and closing down factories in the naive hope that the magical hand of the free market would create jobs. Under the new U.S.-backed Shiite regime, working class Sunni"s lost hundreds of thousands of jobs. Unlike the white Afrikaners in South Africa, who were allowed to keep their wealth after regime change, upper class Sunni"s were systematically dispossessed of their assets and lost their political influence. Rather than promoting religious integration and unity, American policy in Iraq exacerbated sectarian divisions and created a fertile breading ground for Sunni discontent, from which Al Qaeda in Iraq took root. The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) used to have a different name: Al Qaeda in Iraq. After 2010 the group rebranded and refocused its efforts on Syria. There are essentially three wars being waged in Syria: one between the government and the rebels, another between Iran and Saudi Arabia, and yet another between America and Russia. It is this third, neo-Cold War battle that made U.S. foreign policy makers decide to take the risk of arming Islamist rebels in Syria, because Syrian President, Bashar al-Assad, is a key Russian ally. Rather embarrassingly, many of these Syrian rebels have now turned out to be ISIS thugs, who are openly brandishing American-made M16 Assault rifles.