mikey

Wha? Because there’s lots of Islam in Spain and not enough in Iraq? They’re importing Islam from Spain to Iraq? Spain is an Islamist state? Who knew?

So Spain today is what “the terrorists winning” would look like? If that’s what you’re terrified of then you’re an even bigger pussy than I’d ever thought possible.

Yeah, that explains why the Terrorists want to spread Islam from Spain to Iraq. Clearly they’re done with Spain.

Second, are you, Gary, comparing total terrorist deaths worldwide to the number of deaths of Americans at the hands of American terrorists? Hmmmm. That just doesn’t seem right, now does it.

Obviously, they need to keep trying until they do kill enough. Maybe simultaneous nukes in DC, NY, and LA will do it. If not, Americans have lots more cities.

When you are hiding out in a cave or a cell in a US city, you’ve cut yourself off from your friends and family. You expect to die. Nothing the US does, short of killing you, has any effect. Killing your countrymen and family only serves to generate recruits to take your place when you are caught, or when you die successfully launching an attack.

This is the nature of asymetric warfare. Americans have a lot more to lose than the terrorists. Any kind of tit-for-tat is going to favor the terrorists. The terrorist can survive, even thrive, amid chaos and random destruction. America cannot.

After the Soviet Union collapsed, the Mujahadeen took credit for the collapse and threatened to do the same to America. I laughed then. Only we have the means to bring America down, by bankrupting our economy, by fueling terrorism around the world, by alienating our allies, and by driving the rest of the world to oppose us.

I laughed, because I did not believe Americans could be stupid enough to go down that route. One of the motivations behind the attack on the WTC (according to Osama himself) was to provoke the US into responding. He understood, better than me apparently, that the US was indeed that stupid. In fact, America’s stupidity has exceeded Osama’s wildest dreams.

I’m not laughing any more.

Intentionally killing innocent people in order to advance your cause.

You mean like George Bush’s invasion of Iraq?

Allow about 15 minutes for a reboot and he’ll be right back.

The fact is that the left blames America first.

The Islamic-Fascist terrorists blame America first.

Let’s assume for the moment that your premises here are correct. Your syllogism is still flawed. Can you spot the problem? Here’s a simplified example:

Premise 1. Joe likes apples.

Premise 2. Mary likes apples.

Conclusion 3. Joe likes Mary.

See it now? Even leaving aside that in your syllogism, “Joe” doesn’t “like apples,” surely even a Republican Talking Point Robot such as yourself can see the inanity of that conclusion based on those premises.

Now, could you please explain which part of your ass you pulled your terrorism numbers from? According to the National Counterterrorism Center statistics for 2005, Islamic extremists accounted for 4,090 terrorism deaths in that year alone. Of course, other groups accounted for more than 10,000 other fatal terrorist attacks (including that great killer, “Unknown”). Interestingly, there were 8,299 fatalities in Iraq — more than the total ascribed to Islamic extremists — which I guess means the NCTC hates America or something.

And of course, we U.S. citizens need to be terrified of the terrorists, right? Because of how many Americans were victims of these killer Islamists. Oh wait. In 2005, according the U.S. State Department, of the more than 14,500 deaths from terrorism in 2005, 56 of them were U.S. citizens. Whereas, 10-15,000 victims were themselves Muslims. So I guess Misha and his eliminationista pals ought to be thanking them? (It may be worth noting that the NCTC definition of “terrorism” — when discussing fatalities — is focused on non-combatants; but (a) when combatants are killed in an attack on non-combatants, the combatants are added into the tally; and (b) when non-combatants are killed in an attack on combatants, e.g., a military base, the incident is not a terrorist attack and the non-combatant deaths are not tallied in the report. Once again, the NCTC clearly is in bed with the Islamofascists.)

But it’s not all about death, is it? What about all those kidnappings by Islamists? Hmm… According to the NCTC, there were nearly 35,000 kidnappings in 2005. Wow! Those Islamists must have been really busy! Oh. No, wait. 95% of those were in Nepal. And the next-largest number was in Colombia, with 499. Those Islamists are pikers when it comes to kidnapping and hostage-taking.

By the way, you should maybe check whatever list of talking points you used to source your numbers, which go back all the way to 1982. The Beirut barracks bombing was October 23, 1983, not 1982.

Israel is targeting civillians, infrastructure, Hezbollah, and political targets, in that order. Lookit, the Israelis are GOOD. These are not misses or collateral damage, these are intentional hits.

And even if suddenly the Israeli Air Force suddenly became the gang who couldn’t shoot straight, I’ll try it again. Do you have ANY idea of the blast radius of a 500 or 1000 pound aerial bomb? What that would mean in a fucking NEIGHBORHOOD???

Dood, I’ve been on the perimeter when the fast movers delivered, what the military likes to call CAS, Close Air Support. When one of these things lands half a klick away it can kill you, and it definately fucks up your day. Tell me again how, at 600 miles per hour, 12,000 feet over a densly populated neighborhood, the israeli bombing is, what was the word? Oh yeah, surgical. Of COURSE it is…

*Snicker*

mikey

let’s say equally motivated, and move past that total irrellevance.

GARY

How many times has Iran installed a US Shah, as you saiy they would like to do.

And how about vice-versa??

Well, no. He doesn’t counter any of the arguments we’ve presented. He’s of the school of argument favored by those who act out of fear and prejudice rather than reason. It goes something like this: maybe if I say it often enough, people will believe it’s true.

Sadly, this method of persuasion often works.

But it’s not working here, so Gary goes to the next step: OK, they got me on that one so I’ll assert a claim that’s neither supportable nor refutable, something like When it comes to the forces which are more likely to kill thousands of Americans, Islamist terrorists are much more likely to want to do that than anybody else.

Those weasel words about who’s “more likely” to “want” something are just nonsense. There’s no way to back them up with any sort of real evidence, which makes the selective use of anecdotal support seem appropriate.

Gary’s going to keep equating those who meet his definition of terrorist with anyone who shares their religion, ethnic background or country of origin (unless any of those demographic features works against his argument, in which case he’ll declare it irrelevant). He’ll continue as well to shift his own private definition of key terms like “terrorist” so that it will always fit those he’s afraid of and never fit those he fervently hopes will protect him.

Clearly, being secure in the knowledge that he is right to hold his fears is more important to him than figuring out what to do about putting a stop to the conditions that cause those fears in the first place.