I skimmed enough to see that you didn't argue against my description of your position.
So I take it the description was accurate.
I note that you lie about what I wrote, which was: All (functioning) democracies tend to ignore human rights and laws when its citizens are threatened with terrorism.
I removed the rest and references. You phantasize something without me having to help anyway...
Al Qaeda is a common name used by lots of different little local terrorist groups to make themselves seem menacing. eg if the Al Shabab boys in Somalia want to make themselves seem badass, they call themselves "Al Qaeda in Somalia"
But facts don't matter to you because you are a complete fraud.
So we'll give you the benefit of the doubt, and pretend that you are talking sense. We'll pretend that you were referring to Osama Bin Laden's organization in 2001. His actual organization, not the one in your fever dreams.
That organization had hardly any people outside of Afghanistan. And didn't use much money. Their entire budget for the attack was 19 air tickets and some box cutters.
The facts about the attack are also that it was small. Large for a terrorist attack, but small in the grand scale of things. 2 or 3 buildings knocked down, and about 3000 people killed.
We'll throw in the US embassy bombings and the attack on the USS Cole as well.
And you are saying this grand total justifies extraordinary rendition, suspension of habeas corpus and the Geneva conventions, the Patriot act etc etc etc. while the Korean war didn't?
Mao's China and Kim Il Sung's Korea put together, with their legions of commandos (and now their nukes) were a threat.
Are you trying to say a few thousand suicide bombers are a bigger threat? Such a bigger threat that we have to give up civil liberties for them that we did NOT have to give up when at war with China?
Are you really that stupid?