>>37
Quit blaming the gov't
I'm sorry, but if we're going to try to find the reason behind why they attack us, we have to look at our own foreign policy. If they attacked us on the reasoning that because we're free and prosperous, and because of Islam, then they would have attacked us long before any of our grandparents were even born.
While Bill Clinton and congress were going through the whole Monica Lewinsky debacle, Clinton during his second term were sending forces all around mucking in the middle east, killing at least half a million if not more. Back in around 1998 we were putting sanctions on Iraq (just like we are doing on Iran now), and they never forgot that.
Islamic extremism exists, no doubt about that, but what you don't understand is that when you intervene in foreign affairs like this, you give them the incentive to radicalize.
All this crap about increased airport security is just slashing at the endless branches. If we're going to find a solution to this problem, we have to look first at our interventionist foreign policies and how they contribute to the radicalization of these people who attack us.
it's radical Islam's fault not Americas.
I've never said it was the fault of Americans. Just our corrupt government
but there will never be a fool proof way of protecting everyone.
Exactly, which is why it's flawed to even try to do anything about it in the first place.
The corporate interest in these regions is your fault aswell because these companies have to listen to people bitch everytime their gas prices go up a cent, so I wouldn't talk to bad about them when you're the one proping them up.
I agree. This is the interventionism I wrote above.
>>38
As for the lax security, if people quit compliang[sic] about flight delays that wouldn't happen. You want to have your cake and eat it too.
Complete nonsense. It's not just about "delayed flights", it's about the whole idea behind should we give up some of our liberties for some safety? These things are always a precursor for more security involvement.