Jee Nious, I too love sophia...!
And even though I do not mind engaging in the dialectic from time to time, my perception is that no amount of information or recounting or historical delineation of the facts would make any difference to you. And what is the objective of dialectical materialism, in the end, synthesis? You remind me of a discussion that I had with a gentleman years ago, I read the dictionary definition of the term terrorism, and he then disagreed with the dictionary. I said, what would be the point in pursuing the discussion, for unless the goal was to arrive at consensus, rather than what is 'actual or true', then what would be the point other than engaging in a pointless exercise?
It appears to me that you have your own personal agenda, and an ax to grind. And the same is evident given how you digressed from the theme of my original short polemic and launched into a diatribe about a completely different matter in order to sway or prevent relevant discourse.
Remember those who in the past taught that there aren't any absolutes, and the persons that they were talking to responded, not even the absolute that you just proposed? I suspect that if I were to say to you that George Bush 33 (his current approval rating) is the current President of the United States, you might come back with some random highly ethereal ramblings about relativism/what is real and not real quantum physics argument in order to say that he may not actually be the current President of the United States.
How about this, a secularist once told me God did not exist, given that anything that he could not experience through the senses did not exist? I reminded him that before we met that I did not register on his sensory place, however, twenty-two hundred miles away I was going about living out my existence everyday. He countered and solidified his position by saying, my point is, if I cannot experience a phenomenon, it does not exist for me and therefore it is irrelevant. Well fine, then we can discuss sensory deprivation.
Perhaps both of you have made my original point, that what neither of you and most Americans have not experienced, given your miseducation and your own realities, simply does not exist and neither does it matter. And, getting back to the topic, by and large that is what the folks on the other side of the world, America's so-called enemies, are saying about self-absorbed America. To the other side, their personal and nationalistic realities are inconsequential and irrelevant to the elitist and self-absorbed Americans.
The fact is that the individuals that Americans consider their enemies, do exist, and within their own realities, based upon their interactions with the U.S.A, their conclusions are much different from what Americans believe and have concluded about America. Does the other side deserve the same right that Americans reserve for themselves, to criticize, attempt to alter or attack America just as America has done to them? Or is Pat Buchanan, former Presidential Candidate and journalist correct when the says, 'We are the Superpower", and therefore we have the right to do what we do!
Some of you will say, well we are no worse than they are and all nations do dirty stuff. But from their perspective they would argue, we have not set ourselves us as the moral arbitrageurs of the Universe, we are not the nation that is trying to spread its propaganda and force its system on every other nation of the world, we are not that nation that claims to believe that humans are endowed with certain inalienable rights by the creator and that all men have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and to experience the freedoms and entitlements that only Democracy can bring. And, to prove our point, we will invade your country, destroy your choices as to how you want to live your lives, destroy your governments and Theocracies force you to accept and enjoy American style 'Demo-crazy',whether you like it or not!
Glory Hallelujah and help us God, the Singularity or the undefined!. The only ethical and principled thing that the U.S.A. is doing with respect to their perceived enemies is to 'not talk to them directly'. Why? Because the U.S.A. has already made it clear that it has zero intentions of entering into a principled dialogue. Our idea of a principled dialogue is, we will tell you what to do and you will respond, yessa, Satrap Massa!
From the philosophical and sagacious no nonsense Rev