So if you insist that the US military take actions against the drug cartels, then it is only logical that the US military must take actions against internal drug users as well.
Since you seem to have trouble differentiating between drug lords and drug users, it's understandable you should get confused.
Or, more likely, you are hunting for another strawman as usual...
Wrong. The drug cartels are threats to national security in the sense that they will use their organizations to facilitate Islamic terrorism, just as we once feared that they would do the same for communist terrorism. But as far as the illegal hallucinogenic substances go, if the US declare them legal, that problem would go away. We cannot do the same for Islamic terrorism. These vital differences that you must ignore in order to condemn the contents of Dooley's pd resentation.
No, what matters are the characteristics that Dooley uses for his scenario. This is not a comparison of random, myriad characteristics, but only the ones relevant to the discussion here, i.e. Dooley's course.
I already listed the parallels. Drug cartels target American civilians, terrorize large groups of people, operate in and control vast areas of sovereign countries, and do not follow Geneva Conventions. They are already considered a threat to national security (quite apart from any links to AQ types).
No, you fear it. You know that what I said is true. Even your own countrymen here admitted it.
The issue is not whether something is allegedly true or not, but whether it is relevant to the discussion.
All he says is that if moderate Islam cannot control terrorism, then... As I pointed out earlier, this is SOP #1 for bigots to justify their prejudice. I urge you to educate yourself about the history of race relations in the US, for example, to understand that Dooley's arguments are old, hackneyed tricks of bigotry.
For people familiar with the history of race relations, Dooley's poison is nothing new or original. That is why he US administration took action on his course, not because of any 'political correctness' pressure.
See Al-Qaeda's followers. See where they came from? See those 'lone wolfs' attempts at terrorism inside the US. Did you miss that one of them was Pakistani-American? What origin is US Army Major Nidal Malik Hasan?
And, again, how does that translate to 1.4 billion people 'declaring total war'?
Does not solve it. It would be a retaliation. That is how war works.
Not at all. War does not involve deliberate collective punishment. At least, according to the established rules of war in Geneva, it's not supposed to. As a signatory, the US is expected to behave by international norms.
Of course, the whole debate here is that Dooley wants to do away with the Geneva Conventions. And some of you here are defending that course of action.
The muslim countries do not engage in such at all. No, sir. All are transparent to the public. Absolutely. So I guess those 'Death to America' rallies are true expressed sentiments of the muslims. Damn good declarations of war, I say.
...
