saxitoxin wrote:Again, though, this would be moot if Israel didn't exist. The U.S. would be under no threat of terrorism if Israel didn't exist. There would be no excuse for the Obama regime to strengthen their internal security apparatus if Israel didn't exist. Two thousand Americans died because of their government's war pact with Israel in 2001
Nope. Israel really has nothing to do with the rise of " Islamic fundamentalists" - it's just another excuse they use (now) to gain political and economic goals through terrorist acts.
See... the movements started before Israel existed, and became more violent because of things that had nothing at all to do with Israel.
The modern Islamic fundamentalist movements have their origins in the late 19th century.[25] The Wahhabi movement, an Arabian fundamentalist movement that began in the 18th century, gained traction and spread during the 19th and 20th centuries.[26] During the Cold War following World War II, some NATO governments, particularly those of the United States and the United Kingdom, launched covert and overt campaigns to encourage and strengthen fundamentalist groups in the Middle East and southern Asia. These groups were seen as a hedge against potential expansion by the atheistic Soviet Union, and as a means to prevent the growth of nationalistic movements that were not necessarily favorable toward the interests of the Western nations.[27] By 1970s the Islamists had become important allies in supporting governments, such as Egypt, which were friendly to U.S. interests.
By the late 1970s, however, some fundamentalist groups had become militaristic leading to threats and changes to existing regimes. The overthrow of the Shah in Iran and rise of the Ayatollah Khomeini was one of the most significant signs of this shift.[28] Subsequently fundamentalist forces in Algeria caused a civil war, caused a near-civil war in Egypt, and caused the downfall of the Soviet occupation in Afghanistan.[29] In many cases the military wings of these groups were supplied with money and arms by the U.S. and U.K.
As for Snowden choosing his venue and not being jailed pre-trial, it's likely so he can reveal some more classified materials.
Don't get me wrong. I have never liked the Patriot Act; but that act does make what NSA is doing, "legal." As such, Snowden isn't a whistleblower (someone who's shedding light on
illegal activities) but instead, he's a criminal who violated contractual requirements to keep classified material classified, and who potentially endangers US interests and people for his own gain - whether that personal gain is emotional or financial.
