Joe_Cavalry All Day Every Day

I used to be straight, but then I got Scoliosis.

The minimum length for an argument is 50 characters. The purpose of this restriction is to cut down on the amount of dumb jokes, so we can keep the quality of debate and discourse as high as possible.

Here's why I say people and not books. There are Muslims, and then there are bat-shit crazy Muslims who blow stuff up. The normal Muslims make up a much larger demographic. When you burn a Qu'ran, yes you are protesting the terrorism in a way because you're making them mad, but you are also offending the larger Muslim community who hates the radicals as much as we do (or at least as much as I do). Burning the Qu'ran makes them all angry about it. Killing an Islamic extremest on the other hand, is actually productive because it is targeted. A Muslim extremist/jihadist that dies, dies alone since the normal Muslims hate them (as previously stated). In fact, many people in Iraq and Afghanistan are happy that the US is there killing jihadists because jihadists are cruel to anyone who isn't a part of their extremest belief system, including other Muslims. I don't contend that we should actually be burning them, but they are a group of people that cannot be reasoned with, so for the safty and stability of the middle east, they must be destroyed.

Burned people are non violent people. Burning books just makes them all angrier.

I don't see that it serves any purpose. We should instead be burning jihadists.

No, because having running water in your home requires energy to be consumed for pump and filtration stations, so they should go and drink from a creek.

Destroying terrorism using violence will never work. It is a band-aid solution that does not address the underlying problem, whether its poverty, discrimination, religion, corruption etc.

Violence is a systemic problem with humanity that will probably never be entirely erased, so everything in a sense is a band-aid solution.

We need to counter religious propaganda/indoctrination with rationality, counter corruption with transparency.

In ideal circumstances, that would be fine, but unfortunately, there are always going to be groups of people who simply won't listen to reason. There will always be people who blame innocent people, and inspire violence. Until there comes a time when everyone will be reasonable, there can't be a peaceful solution.

No, it is certainly not "problem solved". I too am enlisted in the service, and I don't want someone looking at my "naughty bits" whether they can see them or not. It's a matter of how we are able to get along and work together, not the shower staring itself. You of all people should understand that. I would not feel comfortable at all serving with someone who fantasized about me, and a lot of people feel the same way. When you serve, you are agreeing to suppress certain facets of your individuality for the common good. No service member should do anything that detracts from the common good. Coming out of the closet included.

To your first point, I agree. These things certainly are not fair. But that is the way of life, and we cannot change that. If we did make it "fair" for them, it would only come at the expense of someone else forced to pay for welfare "charity". Taxing citizens for services they do not benefit from or going dangerously far into debt is not fair for the taxpayer, or the government. You cannot remove an injustice by substituting it with another injustice.

Has the U.S. government not looked across the pond at the U.K. or up north to Canada? have they not seen how badly their health care system is failing? Of course all the politicians in favor of it will tell you that it's so much different but it's just like China making the argument that it's system of communism is better than Soviet Russia's system of communism. IT"S STILL COMMUNISM! No matter how Obama tries to dress it up, it's still a system that has been known to fail and it shouldn't become a government system. especially when we are so far in debt already.