Libya. 2011. Not just the everyday people of Libya, but the Arab League of Nations.

You guys crack me up. Libya's "revolution" is was driven by a bunch of Al-Queda affiliated radical islamists hell bent on overthrowing the secular thug whom they despised in order to establish Sharia law and put uppity women back in burkas (see also: Egypt where the Muslim Brotherhood is about to win the first-and-last "elections").

You and NATO helped in (absolutely misplaced) hopes of getting on their "good side" and getting access to Libyan oil fields. But that was just a long-odds gamble, the real profit was to be had in spent munitions, military gear donated and other ways to transfer money from your taxes to the members of the 1%.

Also, I am not sure if you are aware, but Arab League is composed of a bunch of absolute monarchs with a decided Islamist bent whose sole concern is to have more influence on countries previously run by secular dictators, hence their support only for "revolutions" in places where such a secular dictator is under threat from the Islamists: Egypt, Libya, Syria etc.

You can also very accurately claim that the people of Syria are at this very moment asking for the same action, but have not yet been successful in convincing the United States (and/or others) to do so.

You can't be that naive, can you? You surely jest. Radical, vicious Islamists are the foreign-sponsored "revolutionaries" in Syria and are set to take power if Asad falls. They already have an impressive record of persecution and murder of anyone who is not them in the areas they managed, however briefly, to control. Go help them, the great exporters of "freedom" that you are! I am sure that you will find some way for your 1% to profit from it, whichever way it goes.

Libya last year. Serbia before, Kuwait, Korea,

You gotta be kidding. This is why I asked for anyone who is not a self-serving jackal asking you for "help". And so you list prime examples of the very thing I pointed out!

Libya: a bunch of radical islamists trying to overthrow a secular thug in order to establish Sharia law and persecute everyone who is not them. You and NATO helped in hopes of gaining preferential access to Libyan oil fields. Next.

Serbia: a bunch of power-hungry "separatists" who would exploit any possible division to split their country into a buch of city-states if they could get away with it as long as it put them in charge. Not to mention that some of them used a clever strategy of breeding like rabbits to gain control of territory of their neighbours, which you and NATO whole-heartedly endorsed. So you stepped in and gave them "freedom" to be dependent on you and your allies! And oppress the Serbs. Then there is a whole litany of fabricated "war crimes" that you try to pin on the Serbs to bring them to heel (never you mind that NATO killed far more civilians in far more criminal fashion, like bombing passenger trains, etc). An exercise in disgusting, self-serving "righteousness" for profit. Next.

Kuwait: an absolute monarchy invaded by a next door thug over them syphoning his oil using lateral oil wells running under Iraq's border built by US corporations (you knew the reason for the invasion, didn't you?) and so you went and ... restored absolute, oppressive monarchy back into its "rightful" place, the great purveyors of "freedom" and "democracy" that you are! Oh and the lies and propaganda that went along with it! The tear inducing (and totally fake) "eye witness" testimony by an incognito daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador before the Senate about babies murdered in their incubators... just priceless. Next.

Korea: you propped up a dictator so bloody and corrupt that half of his country preferred Soviet-style thuggery to his exploits! Or did you think that all these North Koreans who fought against you did it just for kicks? It was not until the 1990s when the last South Korean dictator was ousted, all the previous ones having been untouchable due to your whole-hearted support, the great lovers of "freedom" and "democracy" that you are. Next.

WW2: you ignored all the pleas for help while trying to profit from the war by strategically supplying both sides until you were outright attacked by the Axis, Japan having bombed Pearl Harbour and 4 days later Nazi Germany having declared war on you. You did not join out of any good will. Next.

WW1: a bunch of blood-thirsty empires fighting over which royal dick is going to be sucked by whom. There were no "good guys" in this war and so you cannot count it as "helping" anyone (other then yourself). Next.

the list goes on.

Indeed, the Spanish American war, the subjugation of Philippines, etc etc. A long list of selfish, self-centered exploits of a greedy empire.

Some US military actions are deplorable and indefensible, but some of them are legitimate attempts to help defend freedom and democracy

Actually the distinction is quite different. All of the military actions of the US are (with the possible exception of WW2) self-centered profit and expansion of power seeking excercises but because of the chosen "national narrative" and "national mythos" of the USA, i.e. "brave defenders of freedom and democracy" that your power elites use to hold the thing together, they are forced to pretend that the actions are to give liberties of the oppressed etc and so on to keep the populace appropriately opiated. Sometimes the mirage thus formed is more successful then other times. This is what is confusing you.

US = Imperialist and Everyone Else = Innocent Victims is a naive way of viewing the problem.

That is not the view. The view is far more straightforward: empires = imperialist, be they Roman, British, French, Russian or American.

What makes the difference however is all the hypocrisy of the US empire trying to paint itself as a peddler of "freedom" which makes it a particularly odious specimen.

It was quite telling when he said "It's very foamy today" in a slightly embarrassed voice as if he knew that always happens but didn't want to give that impression.

This is also one of the few times when the comments on youtube are not rabid and insulting, to the point that they are even trying to help!

So you agree. Most of the 100,000 deserved to die. They were already our enemies. Deluded too.

I will quote you to anyone who has ever expressed any sympathy for the US after 9/11. That will cure them of any misconceptions rather quick.

Come to think of it, your logic of "the uppity foreigners actually want to hold us to all the bullshit we've been spewing and then refuse to lick our boots worshipfully and to cower in fear before us - kill these ingrates all!" expresses a world-view straight out of Mein Kampf. You know, that book so revered by your other supremacist ideological brothers of yesteryear. Same ideas, different übermenschen. They sported more bloody results of their insane lust for global domination, but the hour is young yet. Then, on the other hand, they did not have Internet and so they all had to go and be belligerent jackasses in the real world, instead of being online "tough guys" - like you - who cower in their basements while cheering on the mercenaries in foreign lands.

Settled.

Agreed! Your medication has indeed settled at the bottom of your stomach ... where it unfortunately failed to dissolve and thus has no effect. Probably too much alcohol in the surrounding contents.

You might try stopping chewing on the furniture for a bit and try lying down instead - at least until this episode of yours passes. To put you to sleep you can count bloody corpses of all the "enemies" you are going to kill! Since there are at least a good 5 billion of them, you are not likely to run out before midnight...

For everyone 1 person that hates the US there's 5 that wish we'd come in and fix whatever crap is going on in their community.

This is a perfect example of the root cause of everything that is wrong with the USA: supremely arrogant, utterly self-deluded, smugly imbecillic and profoundly ignorant feeling of the Universe revolving around your ass.

From what I've seen traveling around the world (something that I am sure you did not deem necessary to form your opinion) is that if anything, your numbers are actually reversed: for every naive goofus who sees USA as a potential saviour, 5 see it for what it is: a self-important empire whose distinguishing feature is hypocritical pontification about "freedom" and "democracy" while depriving anyone who has something it wants of freedom, property and frequently life all the while propping up convenient dictators and absolute monarchs (see also: Saudi Arabia) all over the world.

And your general attitude just illustrates the point gloriously.

America isn't perfect but we're the best hope for the World and everyone knows it, that's why they loan us money until they're starving because they know if there's ever a problem we're the ones they can call.

Comedy gold. What was the last time anyone other than thieves and would-be robber barons hoping to profit from misery of their fellows actually asked you to show up and blow their country to smithereens in the name of "saving" it?

Or were you trying to be sarcastic by pointing out how USA rigged the world financial markets for its own benefit? Or more precisely for the benefit of its top 1%, who - amusingly enough - are these days busy abandoning what they sense is soon to be a rotting corpse of a has-been empire for some greener pastures...

Now you linked to the daily mail, otherwise know as the daily hate. To show the bias read its article on the survey versus this one and you will see the hate filled anger the daily mail is going for.

The headline of the daily mail article is

but the question asked in the survey was

(To which 11% strongly agreed, 11% tended to agree, with it saying all agree was 22%. I don't know where they got the 24% I think maybe channel 4 shifted the figures slightly for some reason).

Now as you can see the question is not as the title of the article suggests, "Do you believe the July bombings are justified?" but "...were justified because of British support for the war on terror?".

This is really badly worded, I can read it to mean did the bombers justify it because of the British support for the war on terror, in which case I would also agree with this statement. I'm not saying everyone who read the question interpreted it that way but I'm sure some did.

On doing a little reading around this study, I found this blog and specifically this comment, that reflects my views on it, I'll the relevant part below

Here is what it said:

and

Hardly as as damning as you suggested. The right wing media in the UK has been doing its up most to portray Muslims as the enemies of the "truly British" white majority. I'm not saying there is no issues with Muslims in Britain, but anything negative written about them needs to be read with a whole heap of salt.

That reminds me of Starship Titanic (the game). At one point you have to break some emergency glass to get a long stick, if you keep breaking the glass the ship informs you that it has now replaced it with unbreakable emergency glass to stop you. Must have used this stuff.

As much as I'd like to agree with you, if they are the same product why do people buy one of each rather than just make do with one or the other?

While my Mum was still at school in Belfast, they were getting daily/weekly bomb threats for a quite a while. The headmaster then declared that any time lost due to bomb scares would be made up at the end of term over summer. The bomb threats stopped immediately...

Certainly true in the uk, and its own hierarchy is well used. Companies tend to sit on .co.uk ie. The Guardian (although companies are the ones most likely to go elsewhere if needed), universities sit on .ac.uk i.e. University Of Manchester, health related sit on .nhs.uk i.e. NHS Direct, charities seem to sit on .org.uk i.e. The Mens Health Forum, and government websites sit on .gov.uk i.e.HRMC

True there are people who abuse it, but generally you can be assured that if you are on for example ac.uk, it really is an academic institute you are on and not some fraudulent university.

Lawyers in modern society fulfill the same role as the various priests and shamans fulfilled in the societies of old: control of access to the "deity" in fashion (in this case the fabled, never seen, mythical "Justice"). Overtly it is to "help" the sheep to access the deity in question, but in reality it is of course merely to satisfy avarice of the priests and their hunger to wield power over others. That is also the reason why priests are always attempting to control politics - in the old days by manipulating pharaohs, kings, emperors and the like or even becoming kings themselves (also see under "The Pope") - but in the modern times they dispensed with intermediaries and half measures and simply took the power directly, in the so called "republics" and "democracies" in which invariably at least two thirds of the power structure consists of the pries ... err ... lawyers.

And no lawyer has any real stake in simplifying or reducing the input of lawyers.

Which is of course the golden rule of all parasitic priesthoods.

Also note that, just like lawyers, all the priests and shamans in history always claimed to only want to "help" their victims and thus always argue themselves "indispensable" to whatever society they happen to prey on.

Why do you think priests always insist on making the rules of the interaction with the "deity" as arcane as possible? As an example: most of history the Christian priests insisted on having their Bible in a language that common people could not read and which had to be "interpreted" for them, just as modern lawyers insist on "legalese" for the same very reasons. Unlike the Catholic priests however, modern lawyers resort to the methods of other, older, priesthoods by ever expanding and complicating (never simplifying, as you noticed) their arcane manuscripts and rituals. This is because the Judeo-Christians have essentially hobbled themselves with the idea of a "Holy Book", which offers limited room for expansion (although several of the "one, only and 100% true" improvements and revisions have been produced). Fortunately for the Christian priests, the original writers made the thing ambiguous, self-contradictory and - most importantly - voluminous enough to satisfy the purpose it was intended for.

As to "justice", the very first test to see if a society has any is to see if making offerings to and groveling before a priest, i.e. a "lawyer", is a pre-requisite for its supposed dispensation.

Note also how promise of "justice" is a key element in most religions and how much emphasis is placed on it by the religion's priests.

The number of organisms that ever lived... is big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly hugely mindbogglingly big it is...

For me I consider this much more challenging, as often the law is just plain wrong.
1. Enjoy your job
2. Make lots of money
3. Work within your morals