4 ms·
Case in point, though: US is allowed nukes because they are “special”, the rest cannot. On “state sponsor of terrorism”, perhaps it’s time for the US to realise
by hestefisk 4y ago
Case in point, though: US is allowed nukes because they are “special”, the rest cannot.
On “state sponsor of terrorism”, perhaps it’s time for the US to realise it’s a case of the pot calling the kettle back: 70+ years of clandestine operations supporting iron-fisted right-wing regimes in Indonesia (Suharto), Chile (Pinochet), Cuba (Bay of Pigs invasion / project Mongoose), Nicaragua (Contras), Iraq (Hussein prior to the US flipping on him in the invasion of Iraq), DRC (assassination of Lumumba) etc. My point here is not to be a dick, but simply to show that the US itself has sponsored hordes of so-called “state terrorists” and they get to pick and choose who is a terrorist or not based on some list in the State Department. That is not right.
- nradov 4y agoWhat's your point? No one forced Iran to ratify the NPT. They did so voluntarily, and thus agreed to give up development of nuclear weapons. Whether it's fair or right in your opinion is utterly irrelevant. There is no question that Iran is a state sponsor of terrorism. They have literally given weapons and funding to terrorist groups which killed Americans and our allies. If Iran (or other countries) want to also designate the USA as a state sponsor of terrorism under their national laws and impose economic sanctions on us then they're free to do so.