1. Religious freedom therefore should be much higher up the priority list in terms of foreign policy .
2. As William Inboden notes Those actors with the most egregious religious-freedom violations are remarkably consonant with those that pose a potential threat to the United States and its interests ... Stated simply : There is not a single nation in the world that both respects religious freedom and poses a security threat to the United States .
3. In 1999 Burma , China , Iran , Iraq , and Sudan were designated as countries of particular concern with regards to religious freedom .
4. There is a strong correlation between states that are religiously intolerant and those that are a threat to other states and the international order .
5. All of these are countries are countries which over the next decade were to one way or another become major security concerns and several of them involved in conflicts with the United States and other countries .
6. Also the Taliban and Serbia were also included and Saudi Arabia and North Korea were countries where religious freedoms may be suppressed .

What is the general argument implied by these sentences?
It is religiously intolerant states that pose most threat
1. Religionsfriheten bör därför vara mycket högre upp på prioriteringslistan i fråga om utrikespolitik. 2. Som William Inboden konstaterar De aktörer med de mest avskyvärda kränkningar av religionsfriheten är anmärkningsvärt konsonant med dem som utgör ett potentiellt hot mot USA och dess intressen ... Enkelt uttryckt: Det finns inte en enda nation i världen som både respekterar religionsfriheten och utgör ett säkerhetshot mot USA. 3. 1999 utsågs Burma , Kina , Iran , Irak , och Sudan till länder med särskild oro för religionsfrihet . 4. Det finns ett starkt samband mellan stater som är religiöst intoleranta och de som är ett hot mot andra stater och den internationella ordningen. 5. Alla dessa länder är länder som under det kommande årtiondet på ett eller annat sätt blivit stora säkerhetsproblem och flera av dem inblandade i konflikter med Förenta staterna och andra länder. 6. Även talibanerna och Serbien ingick och Saudiarabien och Nordkorea var länder där religionsfriheten kan undertryckas. Vad är det allmänna argumentet i dessa meningar?
1. Freedom of religion should therefore be much higher on the foreign policy priority list. 2. As William Inboden notes, the actors with the most abominable violations of religious freedom are remarkably consonant with those who pose a potential threat to the United States and its interests ... Simply put, there is not a single nation in the world that both respects religious freedom and poses a security threat to the United States. 3. In 1999, Burma, China, Iran, Iraq, and Sudan were designated countries with particular concern for religious freedom. 4. There is a strong link between states that are religiously intolerant and those that threaten other states and international order. 5. All these countries are countries that have become major security problems in one way or another in the next decade and several of them involved in conflicts with the United States and other countries. 6. The Taliban and Serbia were also included and Saudi Arabia and North Korea were countries where religious freedom can be suppressed. What is the general argument in these sentences?
Det är religiöst intoleranta stater som utgör det största hotet
Religiously Intolerant States are the biggest threat