>>>>Sort of reminds me of Morality 1.0:
>>>>
>>>>"Good is when we raid the other tribe's village, take their food and rape their women. Bad is when they do it to us."
>>>
>>>I think most people would agree with that.
>>
>>The trouble is that the same people wouldn't actually admit that it's their definition of morality; they'd argue about laws, all people being equal, the golden rule etc etc, but when it comes to matters of us vs them, they'll find all sorts of excuses.
>>
>>Which is why you'll never hear about, say, Blackwater guys being called militants. Or a gang of CIA covert thugs staging a coup somewhere is a "surgical intervention" and not labeled as terrorism. Or why were Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty deemed to be something positive while actually being the lowest kind of propaganda. Or why international courts for war crimes are recommended for other countries, but not for one's own. Or why arresting a foreign citizen provokes a completely different reaction, depending on who did the arrest and whose citizen it was.
>>
>>All it takes is that some of our rules actually apply to us, and all of a sudden we're back to 1.0.
>
>Which is why you won't find the democrats talking up http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,335500,00.html.
>
>Playing fair with these ba$turds gets people dead. Academic debate about how the US should be the fairest one of all will eventually result in an awful lot of dead US citizens.

And that list fails to list many who were caught trying to cross a border to commit a violent act.