>>>>>>
>>>>>>I also believe that freedom is a cause worth pursuing for the world. Through diplomacy, revolution and war if necessary. This world will be much better off once all its people are free.
>>>>>>
>>>>>Without getting into the merits of one ideology/religion compared to the other........
>>>>>
>>>>>You do realize that if you substitute "Islam" for "freedom" you have the exact attitude held by Islamic terrorists?
>>>>
>>>>You do realize that "radical islam" and "freedom" are polar opposites?
>>>
>>>duh................I never thought of that.
>>>
>>>So it's okay for you to do/support all the things they do because you are on the correct side of the arguement. Funny, that's exactly what they say.
>>
>>OK let's play the substitution game...
>>I suppose my statement means nothing because you can substitute any of the following and get the same attitude held by others.
>>
>>natzism
>>slavery
>>white power
>>nambla
>>
>>In answer to your question. Yes. I am on the correct side of the arguement. What is so objectionable about the pursuit of freedom for all?
>
>There's nothing objectionable about the pursuit of freedom for all. It's the methodology I object to. You can't condem somebody for using a specific method to obtain their goal and then support using the same tactics to support your goals.
>
>If you feel it's evil for the Islamist to start/support a revolution in (pick a non-Islamic country) for the purpose of installing an Islamic regime then it's evil for the US the right to start/support a revolution in (pick an Islamic country) for the purpose of installing a democracy.

So in your view, what US is trying to do is same as what the Islamic radicals are trying to do.... If so, that is a classic example of moral confusion.

You may disagree with how things are done, but I think there are clear distinctions between the two.