The US government seized nearly 1 million barrels of Iranian crude oil allegedly bound for China, according to newly unsealed court documents and a statement released by the Department of Justice on Friday.
If China sanctioned the US as a terrorist state and discovered a Chinese company was illegally selling oil to the US, would you be upset with the Chinese government bringing that company to court? And would you say it’s wrong that as part of the court proceedings, the company in violation agrees to ship the oil to a Chinese port, for the Chinese government to seize?
If that sounds acceptable to you, you should really consider why you find it unacceptable and propaganda when the roles are switched.
Im not disputing that, I was asking for the rational behind the worlds largest terrorist state (the US) trying to dictate who is and who isnt a terrorist.,
Some states do use their own definitions of terrorism to explain why it’s bad when other people do it but OK when they do it, but that’s definitely not a uniform definition.
the calculated use of violence to create a general climate of fear in a population and thereby to bring about a particular political objective.
- Britannica
The use of violence or the threat of violence, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political goals.
- American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language
the use of intentional violence and fear to achieve political or ideological aims. The term is used in this regard primarily to refer to intentional violence during peacetime or in the context of war against non-combatants.
- Wiki
(Government, Politics & Diplomacy) systematic use of violence and intimidation to achieve some goal
- Collins English Dictionary
the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes… government or resistance to government by means of terror.
State actors, by definition are not terrorists.
The US is a terrorist state
If China sanctioned the US as a terrorist state and discovered a Chinese company was illegally selling oil to the US, would you be upset with the Chinese government bringing that company to court? And would you say it’s wrong that as part of the court proceedings, the company in violation agrees to ship the oil to a Chinese port, for the Chinese government to seize?
If that sounds acceptable to you, you should really consider why you find it unacceptable and propaganda when the roles are switched.
Im not disputing that, I was asking for the rational behind the worlds largest terrorist state (the US) trying to dictate who is and who isnt a terrorist.,
America has caused the deaths of around 4.5 million people in the middle east since 9/11
Some states do use their own definitions of terrorism to explain why it’s bad when other people do it but OK when they do it, but that’s definitely not a uniform definition.
- Britannica
- American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language
- Wiki
- Collins English Dictionary
- Webster’s