Syria - Terrorists???

The US military launched a strike inside of Syria from Iraq yesterday.

The justification for this is that they (the ones who were killed) were assisting terrorists. The Syrians certainly aren't convinced by this point of view. Will the public around the world be presented with evidence that supports this perspective? The public around the world never demanded to see evidence of WMDs in Iraq, which were the justification for the invasion. The children who died in the attack yesterday were just described as incidental collateral damage by the US spokesman.

Who are the 'Good Guys' in the world today? George Bush doesn't exactly fit into that category, does he?

How would you like it if some other bigger and more powerful nation decided that they saw justification in launching a commando attack inside of your country, without discussing it with your government beforehand? I'm sure there isn't a single country in the world that wouldn't be insulted or outraged by such an act of arrogant self-righteousness. It isn't going to win the support or respect of many people anywhere, is it? Is the USA above International Law?

Disrespecting the sovereignty of another country's land with military operations can be interpreted as an act of war. Has Syria done anything knowingly deserved of that? Does George Bush even care whether Americans are further disliked around the world as a result? One thing for sure, he will be remembered as the one who (almost[?]) caused the collapse of the world economy.

Isn't it rather dangerous (if one were to be skeptical) if an anonymous person/s has the right to decide if someone else is a 'Terrorist'. There doesn't seem to be any 'Democratic' process in the decision making. Could it simply be the order or approval given by a President? Is George Bush trying to start WWIII one week before the US election in the hope that it will swing the vote in his favor? Didn't he pull that one already?

Kim Jong Il is not portrayed as anything but ridiculous by the Western media. However, he is a proud leader of a nation which technically didn't lose a rather big war. Is it fair to categorize a whole nation as one which supports 'Terrorism', and by doing so cutting it off from the rest of the world? As a result of this, people in this country are reduced to cannibalism every winter. Of course, these people are not going to be so appreciative of the USA, having been subjected to this. Maybe if Kim Jong Il learnt to kiss the ass of the US President like all other leaders of the world do, the results wouldn't be so catastrophic!

The point is this, perhaps the term 'terrorist' is used rather conveniently and biastly, so as to turn countries against one another, so as to keep nations dependant on military protection, which they wouldn't have needed otherwise. Quite a lucrative business, especially for the ones selling the protection. I'd call it a 'Protection Racket'. That's what gangsters do, isn't it?