“Our cause demands we behave with honor”

what a pussy fucking stance.

islamists that are fighting us are not like any force we have faced, although the NV in Viet Nam can be compared to them, as they were fanatical, and not just citizens that were conscripted into the army and told to fight (in most cases)

Islamists are not on the battle field because some government told them to be there. They are there doing “the work ofi allah” and have no plans to quit fighting.

Mecca is their most holy place, and if they believe that the U.S. government will turn their most holy site into a Glowing Hole of Eternal Cancer they may think twice about actually attacking us again.

However, because of cowardly pussies like yourself and other folks that whine about talking to an enemy that has no interest in negotiations they most likely believe that we are the paper tiger bin laden believes we are.

Why can you not get it through your head that we are at war and war is ugly?

Fucking pussy ass coward spineless yellowbellied chickenshit whiny motherfucker.

Please don’t breed.

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.

you still don’t grasp the concept of a deterrent do you?

We are fighting people with no honor, and until we play tougher than they do we are doomed.

Or, you are doomed…...I’d wager you would beg for your life and convert to islam before you would raise a finger against another.

As I said, fucking coward.

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.

so you would rather die than fight?

As I said….coward.

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.

So why wont you answer the question? Would you rather die than fight? Do you understand what the word deterrent means and what one is?

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.

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.

you obviously do not understand the word deterrent.

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.

Why do you support terrorists meaty?

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, it is an honest question. Why won’t you answer it?

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

The question isn’t loaded…

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

Unable to out himself as a terrorist sympathizer, meaty continues to dodge the question….

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

Why Do You Support Terrorists?

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.

I am not interested in derailing anything. You don’t agree with the deterrent of attacking the enemies of my country (I won’t lump you in with Americans because I am pretty certain you are actually french) and then you refuse to explain why you support terrorists.

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.

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.

NO, I asked you why you support the terrorists…...why will you not explain why you support the terrorists?

It is a simple question.

Why do you support the terrorists?

Why do you support the terrorists?

Mu.

“MU?”

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

Nice way to avoid answering the question coward.