Concepts should be applied universally without fear or favor. And facts shouldn’t be suppressed just because those facts aren’t ideologically convenient.
You said, "But when it comes to terrorism in this region, the US was actually directed involved in “the three candidates for the prize of most extreme terrorist atrocity of the peak year of 1985”.
You said: "the US was directly involved in an 8 March 1985 car bombing in Beirut—the bomb “killed 80 people and wounded 250 others”. The bombing was “traced back to the CIA and British intelligence”.
The link you provided for that incident says otherwise. That "there was no evidence the CIA "encouraged or participated in any terrorist activity in Lebanon" or had knowledge of the bombing beforehand."
You said: "Second, the US was directly involved in the 1 October 1985 bombing of Tunis—that bombing killed 75 people"
The link you provided does not say that. Also, an abstention like this on the security council resolution IS a condemnation. If the US was opposed to the resolution they would have vetoed it.
Lastly, you said: "Third, the US was directly involved in Operation Iron Fist in occupied Lebanon in 1985." The only time the link you provided mentions the United States is to say that it vetoed a resolution condemning Israeli operations.
I did a control F on your article and you will see that the word, "Israel" does not appear once. Why is that?
The links aren't supposed to support those assertions; those assertions are part of a summary.
The links are just supposed to show you that these things actually happened and give you a sense that the event is a real thing; the links also provide some basic context and information.
You're taking issue with assertions from the article being summarized; the article being summarized explains the answer to your question about Israel.
What is your logic regarding the abstention? The issue is that the US didn't vote in favor of the resolution, so...? Do you agree that the US didn't vote in favor of the resolution and that that's bad? If so, we agree.
That isn’t how you construct an argument. The citations or links that you use should support what you say. The links you provided are worse because they actually disagree with what you said.
You should read those links you provided. They do not support the assertion you’re trying to make.
Thanks for commenting! Let me know any mistakes or issues that you find and I'll take a look for sure! :)
You said, "But when it comes to terrorism in this region, the US was actually directed involved in “the three candidates for the prize of most extreme terrorist atrocity of the peak year of 1985”.
You said: "the US was directly involved in an 8 March 1985 car bombing in Beirut—the bomb “killed 80 people and wounded 250 others”. The bombing was “traced back to the CIA and British intelligence”.
The link you provided for that incident says otherwise. That "there was no evidence the CIA "encouraged or participated in any terrorist activity in Lebanon" or had knowledge of the bombing beforehand."
You said: "Second, the US was directly involved in the 1 October 1985 bombing of Tunis—that bombing killed 75 people"
The link you provided does not say that. Also, an abstention like this on the security council resolution IS a condemnation. If the US was opposed to the resolution they would have vetoed it.
Lastly, you said: "Third, the US was directly involved in Operation Iron Fist in occupied Lebanon in 1985." The only time the link you provided mentions the United States is to say that it vetoed a resolution condemning Israeli operations.
I did a control F on your article and you will see that the word, "Israel" does not appear once. Why is that?
The links aren't supposed to support those assertions; those assertions are part of a summary.
The links are just supposed to show you that these things actually happened and give you a sense that the event is a real thing; the links also provide some basic context and information.
You're taking issue with assertions from the article being summarized; the article being summarized explains the answer to your question about Israel.
What is your logic regarding the abstention? The issue is that the US didn't vote in favor of the resolution, so...? Do you agree that the US didn't vote in favor of the resolution and that that's bad? If so, we agree.
That is like me writing an article:
“The moon landing was faked. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_11“
That isn’t how you construct an argument. The citations or links that you use should support what you say. The links you provided are worse because they actually disagree with what you said.
I think that these three things will help to clarify matters.
1: It's not a argument; it's a summary. "I’ll quickly summarize below some key takeaways from the article".
2: The article is provided and has footnotes.
3: An entire book is provided and has citations that you can look at.