On Sep 17, 12:36*pm, wrote:
On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 06:05:46 -0700 (PDT), wf3h
wrote:

On Sep 17, 1:49*am, wrote:
On Wed, 16 Sep 2009 12:59:07 -0700 (PDT), wf3h
wrote:

The Crusades took hundreds of years and didn't accomplish a thing.

irrelevant.

OK, You win

If you don't see the parallel it is senseless to continue.

it's senseless to raise non sequiturs

The thing that was senseless in your tirade was the name calling.
It only demonstrates the weakness in your logic.

zzzzzzzzzzz...

IOW when you, deep in the throes of paranoia, come out of your trance
long enough to dump the fruits of your delusions here, we're supposed
to pat you on your head and tell you what a great guy you are.

sorry. that doesn't work, and i'd just impale my hand petting you on
your pointy head.

If you think we will stop islamic terrorism by killing a lot of
innocent civilians in an attempt to get a couple "leaders" you do not
understand terrorism.

ah. i see. so if we surrender to them, and just let them massacre us
THAT will stop them, just like it did on 9/11 when, not only didn't we
KILL any, we actually protected them in bosnia.

yes, i see your point. it's at the top of your head.

You are making more terrorists than you are
killing and the next cell may be Indonesian or African, having nothing
in common with Al Queda but the hatred of America ... because of this
war on Islam.
On the other hand, if we destablize Pakistan much more, the next
terror attack might be nuclear, with a real warhead, not just a dirty
bomb.

and your view that we surrender stops this how? how many attacks have
been successful in the US in the last 8 years? seems to me that
whatever we're doing is working. and your view?

perhaps we could meet at the WTC in new york to discuss.