What makes me uneasy is a mentality that allows you to wear a bomb-belt into an crowd of innocent people and kill them. And possibly the mentality in which you would have your children doing it too. There happens to be one religion that has a high tendency to promote such thinking. And not only thinking, but doing.
Wow, only a small percentage you say. Muslims around the world have been polled on their view of the use of terrorism as a tool to advance Islamic faith. You are correct, only 10% of those polled agree with the use of terrorism. Now apply that tiny percentage to the tiny 1.3 billion Muslim population and you have another tiny number...........130,000,000 Muslims think terrorism is a good thing. If that makes you sleep well at night so be it.
I've dove on the sword (excuse the pun) and admitted this thread didn't work out like I had intended.
Yeah, you did. Your actual premise... was it wise to join NATO at the behest of our allies to aid in a civil war... was a good premise. I was very leery about this too. If in fact Obama had acted unilaterally, I would have been furious. But he didn't. France, Britain and Spain spearheaded this NATO-led attack. So you should have come at the premise about when and why should we abandon an ally's assistance request and refuse to be part of a NATO operation.
Instead you laid the whole thing at the feet of Obama and those "liberals", and turned what could have been an interesting, fruitful discussion into just another *yawn* hyper-partisian hackfest. Next time, choose your words more carefully and you will be much more successful.
No, so are you suggesting that my opinion is only valid if i had been a victim of a brutal dictator for decades? Have you? If you have not then why is your opinion more valid than mine?
The US definition of terrorism has been widely criticized by other first-world countries because it opens the door for a bad prez (like Nixon or Dick Cheney) to create a totalitarian state
It could be both. That MG improved education, quality of life and infrastructure in Libya is true. That GM also committed atrocities is true. The two are not mutually exclusive.
My guess is GM was taken down because the bigger powers could no longer control him. He had been doing the things cited as reason to help the people overthrow his government for decades so I'm not buying this as the true reason.
The rebels who abused MG were angry young men bent on revenge. Had they been older/seasoned men, I believe MG's end would have been more humane and more in accordance with international law. 
Just getting to know you. Bit of a trickster I see. Sure I asked in a previous post whether you were in the army. Your quote however was related to your assertion that the brutal murder of Gaddafi, then a prisoner of war was not against International Law - and you claimed to know this on the basis of being a soldier.
Well, guess what, it is! Makes me wonder what I do not know about the British Army which the British Public would be very interested to know.
You finding it so unusual to have your opinion questioned is also interesting. Hint you are not in the army here
They claim they were always going to bring the guy who killed G to justice and that they are sure he is an individual, not a member of any force at all...so looks like one person will be the fall guy.