Also, for someone who is extremely keen on the idea of freedom wotmaniac, you are suprisingly intolerant of others freedom.
The line between intrusive legislation within a country, and invading another country to change their government because we think it's wrong is inexistent. The only difference being that one is internal affairs, the other external.
Just asking for a bit of consistency.
Also, the following text in no way back atrocities of any kind:
I think that there might be a BIT of a difference between a war that spanned the freaking lenght of the world from japan, to the U.S.A, to the whole of Europe, and any colonies near it (northern africa) and that invoved crimes agaisnt humanity, like locking up naked people in a shower and gasing them, or eating the cadavers of your ennemies because they are animals, and should be threated thus. So as I was saying, there IS a difference between said war, who caused over 25 million deaths, and the tragic death of a symbol of economic wealth that went up in a blaze of shattered security and cost 10 000 lives. Such acts were also mostly done in retaliation to the way america trampled all over these guys freedoms. I don't condone it, but i can understand it.
You have NO right to even COMPARE WW2 and it's toll on economy, politics, morals, demography and society as a whole, and the measures that were taken afterwards to punish the said offenders (those measures were ALSO agaisnt human rights, and I do not approve of them either, they just had a bit more CAUSE to be pissed) and the raids of an organisation (NOT. A. COUNTRY.) who's only merit was to frighten the right nation by one little attack (compared to other things)
By comparing those two, you are commiting an affront to the history of the world, and I think it is not only insulting to us, but also insulting to everyone who died out there, and you, sir, are a morron because you dared go there.