In article ,
Dave Hinz wrote:

On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 10:02:46 -0500, B.B.
. ru wrote:
In article ,
Dave Hinz wrote:

Remind me again of what the followup attack to the US after 9/11/01 is?

And why can't you Bush supporters stick with the context of the
conversation.

You claimed that the anti-terrorism efforts weren't working. My
statement above is in response to that concept.

Actually, I claimed that it's been rising worldwide since Bush began
his war on terrorism. Your statement was in response to something other
than what I wrote.

I was talking about worldwide terrorism since Bush has
been in office. Gunner tried to steer the conversation towards the
previous forty years, (and personal insults) and now you try to steer it
towards terrorism in the US only.

You said it hadn't helped. I'm showing how it apparently has helped. I
didn't claim it has eliminated it everywhere, which seems to be your
measure of success or failure.

Nah, my measure is whether or not there's an upward trend all over
the world. If Bush's war were effective then there would be a worldwide
reduction. However, the opposite has happened. Being able to point to
specific areas where there's been no rise or even a fall is positive,
but not what I'm talking about.

Why are you doing that--it does not
have any bearing on what I said, even if it does have a few words in
common.

Well, it does, but you're not reading what I'm writing.

Then please explain why an improvement in one place indicates success
on a global level in light of huge failures in many places. Or if that
wasn't what you were trying to say, clarify.

However, if you really do like the goal posts in their new position
then explain to me how what we're doing these days guarantees there
won't be any attacks on the US in the future.

Bloody. ****ing. Hell. I never said that. In fact, I said the
opposite. You claimed it wasn't helping. I mentioned that we haven't
been attacked on US soil since 9/11/01, so maybe it _is_ helping. You
counter with "if you can't guarantee, 100%, then it's not helping"?
Wow.

If your logic is that we haven't been attacked, therefore the policy
works then it implies that you expect it to keep working. If you don't
then the fact that we haven't been attacked for a while could be just as
easily explained by something else, like dumb luck. "Maybe" is a
****-poor justification for a goddamned war.

--
B.B. --I am not a goat! thegoat4 at airmail dot net
http://web2.airmail.net/thegoat4/