OK... so would you call any US farmer with some fertilizer and a tank of diesel a terrorist and rain bombs on them? Or is it arbitrarily reserved for countries

OK... so would you call any US farmer with some fertilizer and a tank of diesel a terrorist and rain bombs on them? Or is it arbitrarily reserved for countries on the other side of the world? For defense... You know, the irony is that as long as the US and the West in general had an interest in keeping an even bigger enemy (Iran) in check, they had no moral objection to providing Iraq with all kinds of assistance, financing, equipment, materials, and training on developing the very same WMDs they later invaded Iraq for having, even if it was known they were destroyed. But you'll always get exactly the story you need to hear to support the conclusion you should support. And you will support it because people care less and less about critical thinking, collecting available info from both sides. It's so much easier to just get the conclusion in predigested bytes, ideally just a punchline. If this kind of "thinking" is enough to make people storm the Capitol of the US, it's enough to get the to support the invasion of a dusty corner of the world most of them couldn't even point at on the map.