Then pretend I never put the word "decidedly" in quotes. Why is what I said incorrect?
The allegations regarding non-interventionism are incorrect, inasmuch as there's no legitimate basis for the CIA's long legacy of suppression of democracy that jump to mind. Thank you for your cooperation.
Re: "Islamic Terrorism" - Dependent or Independent?
Originally Posted by Apocalypse
I have no preferred US foreign policy.
The US is not expressing unconditional support for Israel (Objection to settlements).
Now that we've separated the right from wrong:
Terrorism is not rational.
Terrorists are not rational people.
Islamic Terrorists, specifically, do not embrace rationality.
If one expects them to react to specific moves and policies in a predicted way, he is taking in mind that they are rational.
Islamic terrorists might "react" to anything.
Whether it's the US alliance with Israel or the US involvement in Iraq or simply one individual offending their prophet.
That is unpredicted, that is irrational, that is independent.
Everything not only might, but DOES react to anything and everything else. And if you consider rationality in terms of predictability, then I simply don't know what to say other than this line of thought is obviously false. One not being able to predict another's reaction in no way makes the other's reaction irrational.
Originally Posted by apdst
The Supreme Court can't interpret The Constitution. They don't have that power.