Last night, Barack Obama made a speech. There is an interesting statement within Obama's speech. What is interesting is when he said "No Americans were killed during the operation [...] [we] took care to avoid civilian causalities."
Let us examine the above phrase: "No Americans were killed [...] [we] took care to avoid civilian causalities." If you read in-between-the-lines, it suggests something negative. It implies that innocents were killed during the invasion.
Also, if you look more carefully, the phrase might also suggest that American lives are more important than the lives of non-Americans. (On the contrary, the phrase could be interpreted differently. It could mean that the civilians were possibly guilty due to association. But even if such possibility was true, we should not condone the killing of civilians.)
Here is a comment which goes well with this.
The deaths of brown civilians are seen as collateral damage, you know it’s not a good thing or anything, but they’re just means to an end. It’s so sickening to see how our society an separates the life of an American and places it on a pedestal above the life of someone else. A human being is a human being, a life is a life. But I suppose that this type of internally perpetuated disillusionment that many people have in America is nothing short of what’s expected, when people equate the significance of the victims of 9/11 with a higher worth than the much larger sum of civilians who were killed by American troops in the aftermath, dehumanizing and othering who you see to be the enemy has always been a common tactic in play. I really hope I don’t come off as against the victims from 9/11 in any way, one of my own relatives died because of health problems directly caused by that day, I just don’t like how it always seems that every other innocent person who has died from events related to 9/11 aren’t seen as they are as important when they should be.
Barack Obama is a terrorist for planning the invasion. Innocents were killed, and that, by definition, was an act of terrorism. Barack Obama could have prevented the deaths of innocents, just by declining the invasion.
After all, do you think society would improve if Osama bin Laden was killed? Would "terrorism" end? No. The Middle East would continue to be angry at the United States.
The killing of Osama bin Laden is a worthless act. It does nothing to prevent further "terrorism." The Middle East will continue to be angry at the United States.
It's more about the Middle Eastern people, and less about Osama bin Laden himself. Osama bin Laden is merely a symbol of the resentment felt by the Middle East. After Osama bin Laden was called, another leader would replace him. In other words, killing Osama bin Laden would do nothing to fix the root cause of "terrorism."
In addition, innocent people were killed during the invasion. Was it worthwhile to kill Osama bin Laden, at the expense of the innocents who died during the invasion? No. The invasion did more harm than good.
The invasion against Osama bin Laden was not only counterproductive, but it was an act of terrorism. Innocents were killed during the invasion, and that, by definition, is a form of terrorism. Therefore, Barack Obama is a terrorist just like how Osama bin Laden was one.
The invasion was merely an act of vengeance.
I'm not seeing any cause for celebration in the killing of Osama Bin Laden. It's a death produced by anger and hatred which, after all, is what fuels Al-Qaeda.
(The above message demonstrates how the word "terrorism" is used to rationalize our vengeance.)