Chris' Lounge

Definition of terrorism: “a system of government by terror; intimidation.”
Just why do men, women, and children win the trust of armed militants?
Sometimes states have failed to meet the needs of their people.
Territory can be one such contentious issue between enemies.
Or, a nation or tribe has been at great disadvantage and even plundered by wealthier tribes or nation(s).
Precarious balances for life preservation, dependent on food and water, are fought for by armed forces against other armed forces.
Why do so many women [even], generally seen as a life affirming gender, globally support armed groups labeled by the government(s) as terrorists? The short answer, among other reasons, is that some of these groups promise them security, resources, schools and power. Group allegiance is common enough today, that smaller groups have the backing sometimes of governments that were legitimately voted in by the people.
It can be likened to the US supporting a criminal organization, with the intent to root out its political enemies. State sponsored terror can be quite a powerful organization.
Trust in militant groups, is won from people who see armed solutions to their situations.
There are many groups today who see US incursions in their land, a case for justified rebellion and retaliation. One such is “Al Qaida” who also claims moral dominance over the United States. So why do lesser extremist militias receive the same label that “Al Qaida” does? This is the propaganda.
As for the US armed forces, it did terrorize in this decade, groups of people it does not govern… except for, through military intimidation. Depending on who you’re asking, and in what region of the world he live, the label “terrorist” gets thrown about liberally as militaries and non- military groups alike, aim to kill.
“Black Water” was one such group that fought alongside US military in a war in Iraq.
Regional wars in the Middle East between terrorists, can pose risks still for the United States government, which some view terrorist… understood. Restraint by the US, is now, rightfully being considered and given the time necessary for results of prudence.
History has proven that it is more difficult for the US, to (not) intervene. Though it may be hard to act with restraint, seemingly counter to intuition, the lasting effects of restraint can prove to be better for everyone.
I do not want to suggest that I am issuing a decree. I am not omniscient about these world events. It does seem however, the best solution after UN inspectors have left Syria today, would be for the leaders of nations to be mindful of international laws this time, and for the US government to live by them.

The US and British governments have announced that they will allow the UN inspectors the time and space required to complete their investigation into who used chemical warfare in Syria.
This is sensible and good news. We hope the investigation is conclusive and correct.
The downside is that after such investigation, there is no exact telling yet, just with whom terrorists will position themselves. And because of that, exactly against whom will the allied states consider striking? Or, refrain from doing so.

Who is responsible for gassing hundreds of Syrian civilians in Syria? Bashar al-Assad [who does not claim responsibility], or, rebel forces within the country [who it seems are also denying responsibility for]? My country’s government is sending the message that it does not matter who is to blame – what’s more important, is not getting to the evidence for everyone to see. Prepping to attack Bashar al-Assad this Thursday, and already positioned to do so, why should any inspection [which will take longer than just a few more days-passing Thursday] be allowed to make a determination? The message that my country’s leaders are sending out, is that solving crimes does not matter, when acts of war are preferred. Is that how petty crime is solved nowadays in my country as well?