alansmithee

Nothing to argue with here, it's just that some people seem to think you are hiding something if you don't quote a whole post, even if you only have dispute with certain things.

I think this is only partially true. Sure, some are obviously angered by US bombings. But many are also opposed to certain excesses they see in the west. And many are jealous of the cultural influence and wealth of the west. And many are angered at the west for years of exploitation. There are many reasons for terrorist actions, and not all can be as easily justified as you seem to think.

That's not entirely correct. Many Nazi's weren't Christian. I seem to remember Hitler and many of his high officials being more athiest or pseudo-pagan, but this could be wrong. And also, the Nazi's weren't attacking in the name of religion, whereas many terrorists are attacking based soley on their religion (or so they claim).

Again, nothing to dispute here. Although, I would hazard to guess that most Muslims practice much more devoutly than the Christian population. I know that in America, most people will still self-identify as Christian despite never giving a thought to religion.

Not all Islamic leaders would agree with this. As with Christianity, you can't label the entirety of the religion as either peaceful or violent. There are certainly portions who are decidedly not peaceful, and think that they are following Islamic tenets. Just as there were (and still are) certain segments of Christianity who think that violence is justified. I will say that from most historic accounts, Mohammed wasn't a peaceful individual (IIRC, he was a general).

I really see nothing wrong with this assessment. And the lack of clear focus is one of the major problems with the Bush administration's response to terrorism.

This is only partially correct. Terrorists can influence any gov't that has the trappings of democracy. Because they can attack the will of the people. Now, if we were talking about a dictatorship, you would be correct-so far terrorists lack the pure military force or economic clout to influence a totalitarian state.

I don't think that racist is the right term. Muslim usually refers to a certain religion (and you have used it yourself earlier in this context). But you are quite correct in the belief that not all muslims are terrorists. I would even hazard to guess that not even a majority are terrorists or terrorist sympathisers.

Not the same thing at all. Racial profiling doesn't work when the majority of those committing the acts you are seeking to deter are of the majority. But arabs are a minority in the west, which I think would make using profiling more effective. Now if you're talking Iraq or somewhere in the middle east, racial profilling would indeed be foolish.

This is only half-true again. Terrorists are dividing us-look only as far as the outcry against how detainees are being treated. Also, you get people who seek to bargain with them opposed to those who take a more hardline stance.

There's no need for discussion of impeachment if there is no basis. And I have yet to see any real basis. You can't address things that are illogical.

What fire? I agreed with the OP here. It is silly the outcry that is made over the supposed abuse of terrorists.

I think you are wrong here. If this were true, there wouldn't be so many Iraqi's targetted by terrorists.

I don't think that we are the sole line of defense, but I do see us as mainly isolated. Many countries prefer to negotiate, which doesn't usually work with fanatics.

This is false. There is no proof to what you say here. If America wanted an empire, we wouldn't go about getting one in this way. I think your personal views are clouding your logic.


When did China become a free country? I bet around 1 billion people would be suprised to hear that they were free now.

This is silly, and you must know it. Why did you bother replying if you are just going to blatantly misinterpret what he says. Nobody thinks that the US is a muslim country. If it's anything, it would be a Christian country. And there must be something telling about the general status of muslim countries if you had to try to make the claim of US being muslim and couldn't find a muslim country that had those freedoms.

I think the only thing stopping what the OP predicted is the relative weakness of the terrorists. I have no doubt in my mind that it would happen as he said if they had more power.

How is that racist? Many mostly muslim parts of France had people already demanding autonomy from the central government. And I wouldn't call the mass rioting the work of fringe radicals.

Nothing to argue with here. Even though I agree with what the patriot act does, you can't argue that the patriot act doesn't limit freedoms somewhat.

This is wrong, if you assume the patriot act to be an outgrowth of terrorist attacks on the US. But as for the OP's point, I really don't see it, because if anything we are giving them freedoms that they do not deserve (in the case of terrorist prisoners).

Here, I kind of agree with you. I think that kind of broad brush painting doesn't really do any good.

Wrong. The current administration might have some problems (especially in their economic policy) but they are far better than any of the alternates we've been given.

Don't understand this at all. What's with the patronizing, "pseudo-initiations" people have recently been trying to throw around. I personally believe that if the politics board had people half as knowledgeable, logical, and reasonable as they seem to think, comments like this wouldn't be necessary.