You're generalizing. Prove the consistency of this statement.Originally Posted by Big D
The US government has already given itself the right to override numerous Bill of Rights freedoms and protections. Search and seizure, indefinite arbitrary detention, others... all gone, if someone decides you've got a "connection to terrorism". There's been no civil unrest, and very little backlash in the US - anyone who complains about having their freedoms destroyed is simply labelled "unpatriotic", "un-American" or whatever else sounds exciting on the news.
Functional, perhaps not. But I'd rather not wait around for them to be functional, considering his attitude towards us.The US government has publically admitted that Iraq had no functional WMDs at the time of the invasion.Saddam did likely have the WMDs. I'm of the opinion that he carted them off to Syria or one of those other moronic terrorist countries or groups.
Of course not, because we'd kick their asses into next year and they know it. On the other hand, I'm all for an invasion of France.So... if a country's leader/dictator has a disdain for the US, then it's ok for the US to invade, killing thousands of innocents in the process? George Bush has a "disdain" for France. I doubt that could be used to justify an EU "liberation" of the US...His ties to al-Qaeda were virtually nonexistent; he and Osama differed substantially in their religious stances. However, considering that both have an open disdain for the U.S., that isn't particularly relevant.
Their family and friends don't matter.Not to those who died. Or their units, their families, their friends.Two thousand American soldier deaths is nowhere near disastrous. It's a drop in the bucket.
Yes, I stated this as well. I have no idea what purpose agreeing with me so vehemently on that particular issue serves toward making your argument.So is Christianity. The Crusades were religious genocide committed in the name of Christianity. Christian fundamentalists constantly murder in the name of their religion; being Christian also didn't stop IRA terrorists from killing the innocent, nor did it prevent CIA operatives committing and aiding terrorism against pro-Marxist states during the 1980s.And Islam is indeed a violent, combative religion. There exist no other ways to interpret those particular verses.
"They" constitutes fundamentalist terrorists, in this case.Who is "they"? The fundamentalist terrorists, or every Muslim individual? Mainstream Islam is a non-violent as mainstream Christianity or secularism. The violent acts of a few do not justify the wanton annihilation of the rest; otherwise EVERY subculture would be eligible for destruction.Their behavior is different from ours, in that we endeavor not to kill civilians randomly.
[quote]This isn't particularly relevant.Incidentally... when an Air Force bombs a building with knowledge that innocents will be killed inside, there's little difference from bombing a building in order to kill the innocent. Both would be murder, under any country's criminal law.
As I said, the Bill of Rights makes a very clear distinction between American citizens and everyone else. It is not a misconception.
Three thousand CIVILIAN deaths matter, because they're our civilians. Two thousand MILITARY deaths do not.
As I stated earlier, I don't care whether Iraqi civilians are safer or not. As long as terrorists die when our military fires, however many enemy civilians get killed is a complete non-issue. I'm an imperialist; I believe in expanding our power and economy as much as possible. The oil revenues we'll bring in from over there will be massive.
The nuclear issue is why I advocate some sort of a missile defense system. Basically, my desire is no less than to nuke offending countries with impunity and plunder the hell out of whatever's left.
