Capitalist Libertarian Freedom RegionBoard

I think the issue at hand is far more complex than the poll responses allow in response.

Xyanth wrote:

Elaborate on that?

That's basically my answer to the poll.

The possible responses are not so limited as are presented here.

You have to consider international opinion/response, potential for joint action, sanctions, combinations of options, etc.

Could things have been handled better than they were? Sure. Does that mean some kind of total-war response or complete inaction? Not necessarily.

Rothbardistan wrote:

Pearl Harbor was an act of war as it was an attack by the imperial Japanese Navy which was part of the government of the empire of Japan. 9/11 was some guys from Saudi Arabia (but not working for the Saudi government) stealing a plane and using it to commit mass murder and criminal damage.

You are still missing or ignoring the key reason we went into Afghanistan and the reason I would have flattened the place. That reason is the government of Afghanistan knowingly allowed terrorists to train in there country. That makes them a party to the attack.

Rothbardistan wrote:

Using the state to steal productive workers money to go and blow up families in Afghanistan is an odd response to that crime for anyone [b]especially a Libertarian[b].

I am still trying to figure out why you think I am a Libertarian.

Aja wrote:

You are right. There is no way to justify using tactical nukes.

That was not what I was saying but I figured you would not understand. You are unable to understand an act of war because you believe it requires the formal justification of a state.

Rothbardistan wrote:

The United States government itself trained Osama Binladen to battle communism during the Soviet-Afghan war. Would that have been a moral or legal justification for the Soviet Union to nuke cities in the US? You are trying to justify mass murder of innocent civilians for no good reason whatsoever.

Nice try, but you missed. The Afghans were trying to defend their own homeland and were not attacking USSR.

Free market paradise wrote:

That was not what I was saying but I figured you would not understand. You are unable to understand an act of war because you believe it requires the formal justification of a state.

We declared war on terrorism, not Islam.

Xyanth wrote:

Nice try, but you missed. The Afghans were trying to defend their own homeland and were not attacking USSR.

Yet we trained the very man who we would later have to oust. Not to mention the large amounts of weaponry and training we gave to his supporters.

Armus Republic wrote:

There was another terrorist attack...I can only image who is responsible behind it.....maybe a certain group of people that believe in a certain way of "spiritual" life perhaps?

You got me there. The Rastafarians are responsible.

Armus Republic wrote:

Let's be honest about this, it's muslims who planted those bombs

I find it interesting how you are so quick to blame Muslims for terrorist type attacks when there was no evidence at the time. Yes, now it appears that the bombs may be linked to radical Islamic terrorism, but I never make such sweeping assumptions so quickly.

The statistics would beg to differ with your predjudices: http://www.globalresearch.ca/non-muslims-carried-out-more-than-90-of-all-terrorist-attacks-in-america/5333619

Armus Republic wrote:

28822 terrorist attacks since 9/11 were done by Muslims. This year alone there were 1274 Islamic attacks in 50 countries, in which 11774 people were killed and 14303 injured. Now let's say that it's not all muslims, let's say it's 1% of the 1.6 billion. That's still 16 million people, that's not a small number. 5% is 80 million. These are not small numbers of people wanting to kill us. There is a legitimate threat from these people

You still aren't addressing my point. The vast majority of terrorist acts are not perpetrated by Muslims. In fact, very few are motivated by any religion at all.

From 2009-2013, only approximately 2% of all terrorist acts were motivated by religion, and then only a portion of that 2% were Muslims. And of course not all Muslims are terrorists. Not all Christians are terrorists, not all Jews are terrorists, not all atheists are terrorists. It is important to learn to think before you feel - don't make assumptions that cannot be backed up by fact. (Don't assume a terrorist is Muslim.)

I love the made-up statistics (the corrupt universities produce them in endless "studies") "only two percent of terrorist acts were motivated by religion" - if anyone really believes that they have never been to the Middle East.

And "only 2% of religious terrorism is from Muslims" - more made up statistics from some lying university study.

The problem is NOT "Muslims" - the problem is ISLAM, what Muhammed taught and what he personally did.

Most Muslims do not care a fig about all this - why should they care, they are born into the religion and recite ritual prayers (and that is about it).

But some do study Islam and seek to follow the example of the creator of Islam - not the early tolerant verses when he was helpless, but the later verses when he had created his own army.

For example that anyone who mocked Muhammed - even an old blind poet, or a pregnant poetess, should be killed.

Islam (not "Muslims" - Islam) can not be reconciled with the Constitution - specifically with the First Amendment.

Muhammed was very clear - anyone who mocked him or the religion he created must be killed.

That can not be reconciled with Freedom of Speech.

As for the far left people who control the education system and the "mainstream" media - I am sick and tired of their lies.

They, the left, think that that Islam is a useful ally against Western Civilisation (what they call "capitalism") - they (the left) do not understand that they can not manipulate Islam, it will end up manipulating them.

And then ending them.

Ditto the Rothbardians - who are following their normal policy of "enemies of the West? well the conflict must BY DEFINITION be the fault of the West".

"Blowback" - blame-the-victim.

As if Islamic attacks had not gone on for almost 14 centuries.

See Gladstone and Winston Churchill on the real nature of the problem.

Braecland wrote:

Hello :)

Hi!

I'll catch up and respond later.

The current situation in this nation seems to be whenever a police officer shoots a minority, whether or not the shooting is justified, there is an immediate violent response from the community. Usually this response involves the destruction of private property owned by innocent third parties.

By the power vested in me as lord and master of all her surveys, I put you charge. How do you plan to fix this?

Bad spammer. Baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaad spammer...

**Xyanth swats the United sates of merica across the nose with a rolled up monkey wrench.**

Thanks. I... needed that.