“Our cause demands we behave with honor”

However, because of cowardly pussies like yourself and other folks that whine about talking to an enemy that has no interest in negotiations…

I can recall no instance in which I “whined” that we should be “talking to an enemy that has no interest in negotiations”. The shitmonkey is, once again, lying through its teeth.

Fucking pussy ass coward spineless yellowbellied chickenshit whiny motherfucker.

Read the above carefully, boys and girls. This is, alas, the most complex argument that the shitmonkey can possibly formulate. This is its absolute zenith, the apex of its reasoning ability. Pathetic, is it not?

It is not surprising to find the shitmonkey disparaging the concept of conducting a war with honor. The very concept of honor is utterly alien to Kender.

As I said, a moral incompetent.

Kender has already surrendered to the terrorists. He has done exactly what they want him to do: be terrified… so terrified he has purged any trace of morality from the blackened remnants of what might once have been his soul. He’ll embrace any atrocity anyone proposes, so long as he believes it might extend his now-worthless existence a few minutes longer.

The shitmonkey is, of course, incapable of carrying on a rational, honest debate. It is therefore no surprise to see it resort to the tired old straw man tactic of attributing to me a statement I have not made.

At no time have I suggested that we not fight the terrorists. But there is a huge difference between actually fighting terrorists and advocating the mass murder of over a million innocent civilians by nuclear incineration. Kender is, of course, too stupid to understand the difference.

Would you rather die than fight?

No. No one who understands the threat that terrorists pose would answer otherwise.

Do you understand what the word deterrent means and what one is?

Yes. I don’t believe that threat to “nuke Mecca” would serve as a deterrent to terrorism. If anything, such a threat would be used by terrorists as a recruiting tool.

Don’t you think that the possibility of the holiest site in islam being turned into a glowing hole may make islamists think twice before attacking?

Again: No. And the issuance of such a threat would severely damage, perhaps beyond repair, US relations with moderate regimes in Muslim-dominated countries. The populace of such countries would be radicalized by the threat itself, and would demand that their government limit or break off diplomatic relations with the United States, on the grounds that it is a warmongering nation bent on the destruction of all Islam. Quite frankly, if the US did issue such a threat, that view would be correct.

Tancredo’s suggestion is the simple-minded product of a man who has already surrendered to the terrorists. Anyone who makes such a suggestion is unfit to hold any elected office in this country. The United States that I grew up in did not use mass murder, nor the threat of mass murder, to achieve its goals. Tancredo, Kender, and other wingnuts who favor this tactic have allowed their terror to erase their moral sense.

You never answer the question because you are incapable of defending your stance or grasping the issue.

The shitmonkey is lying again. That’s what it does. That’s all it knows.

Shitmonkey obviously cannot construct a rational counterargument. It can only make unsupportable assumptions about my vocabulary — note that it pretends that the fact that I disagree with it about the usefulness of a nuclear threat against Mecca is the same thing as not knowing the meaning of the word ‘deterrent’.

It is also quite unable to address any of the points I did make above.

The shitmonkey is unable to conduct an honest, rational discussion, so it falls back to the most transparent of intellectually dishonest tactics, the loaded question.

The question isn’t loaded…

Unable to construct an honest, rational argument, the shitmonkey continues to lie.

Observe the clear pattern that the shitmonkey follows. It attempts to engage in a discussion, discovers that it does not have the slightest ability to formulate rational counterarguments, and quickly descends to employing intellectually dishonest tactics such as a loaded question as a means of smearing its opponent.

In this case, it is completely confused by the arguments I have made regarding the inadvisability of a US threat to destroy Mecca with a nuclear weapon. It has abandoned that argument completely in favor of unfounded ad hominem attacks. It has tacitly conceded that it has lost the original argument, and is desperate to derail the discussion.

You don’t agree with the deterrent of attacking the enemies of my country…

False. I do not agree with the specific deterrent proposed by Tancredo.

The suggestion that by destroying Mecca we would be “attacking the enemies of my country” is ludicrous on its face. Shitmonkey is suggesting that the over one million inhabitants of Mecca (not to mention the thousands of Muslim pilgrims visiting the city at any given time) are all our “enemy” — which is, of course, utterly ridiculous. This is typical of the hatemongering that shitmonkey and its kind engages in.

...and then you refuse to explain why you support terrorists.

Disagreeing with the ideas of those who would commit mass murder is hardly an expression of support for terrorism.

...you support terrorists…

Shitmonkey is lying — again. It is incapable of conducting an honest discussion.

Why do you support the terrorists?

Mu.