OH…you must be calling your mom down to the basement for more Mt. Dew.

Nice way to avoid answering the question coward.

Why do you support the terrorists?

Mu.

It is a simple question.

Why do you support the terrorists?

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.

Pretty simple actually…..you support terrorists and won’t explain why, so one can only surmise that you are in fact, a terrorist or related to one.

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.

Just in case you missed it meaty, the question is:

Why Do You Support Terrorists?

The question isn’t loaded…

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

Meaty is steadfastly refusing to answer the question…..obviously he has something to hide.

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

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.

Did you know that mecca is the holiest site in islam? 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?

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