Thrown out of an FBO...

Ron,

I have no desire to ever kill anyone but I will
if it comes down to "me or them."


Well, your president shares your view and started. Look how much he has
achieved...

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Thomas Borchert wrote:

Ron,

I have no desire to ever kill anyone but I will
if it comes down to "me or them."


Well, your president shares your view and started. Look how much he has
achieved...

Much more than Philippe Pétain, for example.
Some people do appreciate the lack of terrorist murders as well.

I have no desire to ever kill anyone but I will
if it comes down to "me or them."

Well, your president shares your view and started. Look how much he has
achieved...

Assuming that this president's prime directive was to assure that no
more attacks on America could be carried out successfully, President
Bush has achieved his goal with 100% effectiveness.

Of course, that can change in the blink of an eye, at any moment.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Assuming that this president's prime directive was to assure that no
more attacks on America could be carried out successfully, President
Bush has achieved his goal with 100% effectiveness.

That X happens is not evidence that Y caused X.

Jose
--
"Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Assuming that this president's prime directive was to assure that no
more attacks on America could be carried out successfully, President
Bush has achieved his goal with 100% effectiveness.

That X happens is not evidence that Y caused X.

True. But in the absence of any other explanation, it'll have to do --
for now.

And, given that the Left has been ceaselessly saying that "invading
Iraq (Y) has done nothing but create a breeding ground for more
terrorists (Z)", we can at least conclude that "X" proves that "Z" is
false.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

That X happens is not evidence that Y caused X.
True. But in the absence of any other explanation, it'll have to do --
for now.

That is dangerously flawed reasoning. Instead of filing an IFR flight
plan, I eat Wheaties before any IFR flight. This gives me the ability
to avoid granite and aluminum while cavorting in the clouds.

I'm still here. QED.

I'm not advocating any particular point of view here. It may be that
the conclusion statement ("Bush stopped the attacks") is true. It may
instead be true that there wouldn't have been any attacks in either
case. To choose between these using faulty reasoning amounts to
throwing darts. And to choose based on what you already believe to be
true, and then apply false reasoning to support that act of faith, is
even worse than throwing darts.

And, given that the Left has been ceaselessly saying that "invading
Iraq (Y) has done nothing but create a breeding ground for more
terrorists (Z)", we can at least conclude that "X" proves that "Z" is
false.

No. It is merely evidence that Muslim terrorists may have a longer time
frame than the next quarter, or that successful acts of terrorism are
harder than we imagine.

Again, I'm not supporting any POV w/r/t terrorism and such. I'm merely
rejecting faulty reasoning and faith based logic.

Jose
--
"Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

No. It is merely evidence that Muslim terrorists may have a longer time
frame than the next quarter, or that successful acts of terrorism are
harder than we imagine.

I doubt it. I think it's more likely that our president has access to
and control of an immense arsenal of anti-terrorism weaponry, and has
used them effectively to prevent further attacks.

Of course, wrapped up with all that is the theory that 9/11 so
seriously knotted up the American public that further attacks were
unnecessary. Americans are known the world over for short attention
spans, and the inability to effectively fight a long war.

In short, all the terrorists had to do was wait, and win. Witness our
last election.

Again, I'm not supporting any POV w/r/t terrorism and such. I'm merely
rejecting faulty reasoning and faith based logic.

It's only one possibility -- but IMHO it is the most likely and logical
one.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

In short, all the terrorists had to do was wait, and win.

What do you think would happen if, simultaneously at 3:52 pm, at one
hundred large airports, somebody dressed in arab garb flung off his
clothing and ran naked the wrong way through security shouting in
Arabic? No weapons, no threats, no bombs... It would be utterly trivial
to do.

Every passenger would bet rescreened, cellphones and watches would be
banned (because they could be used to coordinate such an "attack"), and
we'd come close to paralysis.

They have already won.

Jose
--
"Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

It'd be funny if it wasn't so profoundly wrong.

mike

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message

And, given that the Left has been ceaselessly saying that "invading
Iraq (Y) has done nothing but create a breeding ground for more
terrorists (Z)", we can at least conclude that "X" proves that "Z" is
false.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Jose wrote:

Assuming that this president's prime directive was to assure that no
more attacks on America could be carried out successfully, President
Bush has achieved his goal with 100% effectiveness.


That X happens is not evidence that Y caused X.

True, however, enough correlation over time certainly can make one
wonder about a causal relationship. Look how many terrorist attacks
occurred under Clinton or were planned under Clinton and how many
occurred under Bush's watch. We obviously won't know the effectiveness
of the Bush approach for another decade or so probably. However, if we
consider than a large attack takes probably 1-3 years to plan and
execute, if the Democrats dramatically change the approach to dealing
with terrorists and we see a return of attacks after a 1-3 year lag
time, I'll certainly be willing to believe there is a connection.


Matt