LOL!!!!!!!!
What was supposed to be 'offensive' about me turning the EXACT SAME 'logic' employed by the article you posted, on it's *head* to show how ridiculous it actually was?
(Don't you REALIZE that --- by calling that particular argument 'offensive' you are calling the EXACT SAME STYLE ARGUMENT EMPLOYED IN THE PIECE YOU POSTED 'offensive' as well. :-)
In effect (although perhaps you haven't noticed it yet...) *agreeing* with my satire about the silly attempt at so-called 'logic' the author used.
-----------------------------------------------------
Regarding the WORLD CLASS *illogic* of the editorial piece you posted from OpinionJournal, Al Qaeda in Iraq? How Could This Be?, where it concluded: "All right, all right, we know the argument is that if Saddam Hussein hadn't been toppled, Faruq wouldn't have been in Iraq. That is, he wouldn't have been in Iraq where allied troops could kill him. This is supposed to be an argument against our presence there?"
Let me get this right... the TERRORIST *escaped* from a PRISON under American Military control, then went to Iraq (also under 'our control' now, and where he gained entry because the Dictator is no longer in control), and was then KILLED.
Is this SUPPOSED to be an ARGUMENT for RELEASING TERRORISTS from PRISON everywhere... so they can then be killed in battle against our guys??????????????????????????
Of ALL the ILLOGICAL B.S. I've heard this year, THAT has to take the cake as the *MOST* RIDICULOUS MISMASH OF ILLOGIC OF ALL!
----------------------------------------------------
FOR THE HARD OF HEARING:
No, Peter... CLEARLY *neither* ('is supposed to be an argument against our presence there?', and 'Is this SUPPOSED to be an ARGUMENT for RELEASING TERRORISTS from PRISON everywhere?') is a logical or REAL argument. They are BOTH strawmen, FAKE arguments raised merely to confuse the issue and mislead the ... er... folks who might be a little slow on the uptake.
Get that: Strawmen. FAKE arguments. NOT logical. |
