> You do not know the meaning of the words you use in an argument Oh yes, I do. I'm not the fool trying to take some half-baked understanding of ethics-101, an

> You do not know the meaning of the words you use in an argument Oh yes, I do. I'm not the fool trying to take some half-baked understanding of ethics-101, and apply it to some quarter-baked knowledge of basic history. Thats you. Keep me out of it. (ignoring paragraphs of drivel, where you're under the mistaken illusion that you're somehow engaging in a high-minded conceptual dicussion avec moi) Here's the problem you're not getting. From where I'm sitting, you come across as a nitwit with a very very poor knowledge of basic history, and an over-inflated opinion of his own "future projections". That alone makes it hard to take you seriously. Along with your championing of terrorism and nuclear weapons. Now, when you combine that with your eagerness to mix in philosophy, and start lecturing - while still showing many gaps in your own logic and understanding of said terms. The effect is comedic. Unfortunately, the strong whiff of anti-Muslim bigotry which seems to poke its ugly head from your delusional writings is less comedic. Case in point: Kemal Ataturk, who was part of the Young Turks movement that effectively lead Turkey through WW1, Armenian genocide and all - was somehow the moral superior of the Muslim Caliph he "defeated"? (err, when was that?) No doubt, this is all from some made up alternative history you're living in? In short, you're a kook. And quite probably a bigoted one too, at that (just surmising). Yes you have a keyboard, and an ISP willing to let you loose. But no, that doesn't make you any less irrelevant than you probably are in real life. Whatever your ailments, suffer them in silence. Don't involve me.