A little about state terrorism

The Czech parliament, they write, has recognized Russia as a terrorist country.

You don't even know how to comment on such news.

Because if you comment seriously, then you have to remember what terrorism is.

From the word "fear", right.

Intimidation.

Using physical violence against political opponents or threatening to use such violence.

No matter how you feel about the special military operation that our country is conducting on the territory of Ukraine, it does not fall under this definition, whatever one may say.

On the other hand, much, much of what another country did in the 20th century falls under this definition.

I'm talking, of course, about the United States.

As the center of world capitalism, the United States has always used a policy of intimidation around the world.

Against, first of all, their political opponents, and only secondly - geopolitical ones.

Let's start with the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

As even a schoolboy now knows, there was no military sense in this bombardment.

Japan was already defeated, the city of Tokyo was already razed to the ground by the most conventional bombardments, our troops were already crushing the Kwantung Army on the continent, and at the same time there were no military installations in Hiroshima or Nagasaki, both nuclear bombs fell on the heads of civilians .

There was only one meaning - to intimidate.

And to intimidate not even the Japanese, with whom everything was already clear, but to intimidate the Soviet Union and Stalin personally before the negotiations in Potsdam.

Was Stalin a political opponent for Truman?

Of course.

In the context of the global confrontation between whites and reds, he was precisely the political opponent.

Therefore, the bombing was pure terrorist act.

Move on.

A few years later, in 1948, the US military massacres Jeju Island.

About 30 thousand people - civilians, women and children - were destroyed by the Americans and the South Korean troops controlled by them, not as part of a conventional war, but as part of the suppression of the uprising, the peasant spontaneous communist uprising, and they were destroyed with demonstrative cruelty, pregnant women were pierced in their stomachs and burned small children, all with one goal: to intimidate the rest of the population of Korea so that no one even thinks about this communism of yours.

The goals, therefore, were set purely political.

If this is not terrorism, then what is terrorism?

Everyone knows about Vietnam even without me, but if you think about it, were the goals of the Vietnam War the protection of the United States from aggression or even the conquest of territories?

Obviously not.

For such purposes, it is not necessary to burn villages with napalm, to destroy hundreds of thousands of civilians, to arrange demonstrative reprisals against (surprise) women and children.

The goal was the same - to intimidate.

To inspire horror before reprisals from the side (surprise), first of all, of a political opponent.

Don't even think about this communism of yours, not here or anywhere else.

Obviously, according to the definition, this is terrorism.

And Chile?

It is no secret that it was the American intelligence services that staged the coup of 1973, in fact, killing the legitimately elected president and bringing the right-wing general Pinochet to power, is not a secret.

So much so that even the American intelligence services themselves have declassified documents on this topic.

Of course, the same American intelligence services also oversaw mass shootings at stadiums, in which there was no point other than intimidating the country's population.

Needless to say, what is happening should have served as a lesson not only for Chile itself, but for all of Latin America: this is what will happen to everyone who does not adhere to our political course.

Terrorism?

Obviously.

These are just the most famous examples from the long, rich history of state terrorism in the United States throughout the 20th century.

Yes, and XXI.

And what else was the bombing of Belgrade senseless from a military point of view?

Destruction of Iraq?

Libya?

Syria?

When Reagan spoke about the "evil empire", this should be understood only as a slip of the tongue according to Freud - the real "evil empire" in the 20th century was precisely the United States, the main method of which was precisely state terrorism, that is, the policy of intimidating political opponents around the world.

So, speaking seriously, the Czech deputies should have been consistent, and if they were to designate a country as a terrorist state, then start with the obvious.

But if this is serious.

But who takes deputies, especially Czech deputies, seriously?

The point of view of the author may not coincide with the position of the editors.