[mburbank]

"Every other sentence in your last response started with "I agree but..."
-Alphabawrong

Huh. I count myself agreeing with you twice, once about Rwanda, and once about the Sudan. You can sort of count my agreeing that Waco was a fuckup, but I don't think I granted you that it was significant in encouraging terrorism, which was your point. Are you counting where I agreed I was middle aged, and a hopalong? Okay, that takes you up to five agreements. Oh, I guess your counting where I agreed Clinton was a bad president, and when I agreed with your list of events that took place during the Clinton Administration. But all I agreed with is that they happened, not that they support your argument. But fine, take that one too. So a maximum of 7 agreements if you REALLLLLY strecth it. Amongst about 100 some odd sentences, not counting when I was quoting you, 'case I'm being generous here. 7 is 50% of 100 to you? Oh well, this isn't a math test. All I'm saying (and I thought very nicely) is that you aren't totally wrong about everything you say. If I thought you were all wrong all the time about everything always, there wouldn't be the least point in communicating with you.

Okay, No genocide (except where it has 'relevance', ie. you brought it up) no Kristellnacht. You're right, I can't follow why that would be. I wish you'd explain why, one would almost think you can't. Is your deffinition any more speciffic than "Terrorism is the killing of people by Non State groups"? You're making me do this for you, so forgive me if I still haven't gotten what you're saying. I think it's very rude of you to treat me like an idiot when I work so hard to parse meaning from your screed.

"Again, no other President has done for a terrorist leader, and his methodology what Clinton did. Hysterics aside, you haven't addressed my statement at all"
-AlphaNarcissa

Pedantics aside, you haven't supported your argument. You've listed things that happened and claimed they make Clinton more culpable than anyone else. You admit that relatd things happened under other Presidents, but your argument is basically "The things I mentioned are the ones that count more" What evidence or argument do you have that says the Arafat invite empowered terrorism more than the war in Iraq, which W certainly did not 'inherit'. You attribute 9/11 to Clinton, (and here I'd thought that was Osama, but I do understand you) I think what blame there is for that can be shared by the Bush administration, and they alone are responsible for Bin Laden, Omar and the Taliban still existing.

"It might also explain why the Iran hostage crisis, or many other events you mentioend didn't exactly have as much resonance in the Arab world as you might be suggesting. "
-AlphabaMuslimworld

I'm sorry, I didn't know you were the Muslim World. It was my impression that a lot of Middle East scholars thought it was kind of significant, the first instance of Muslim radicals being able to completely defy The Great Satan. But on your say so, I'll accept that it wasn't that big a deal. It sure seemed like a lot back then. But of course I was alive and you were a blastoma.

"As far as age goes, you're the last person who should be playing that up."
-Alphabaweenie.

Why? It's easy writing to vaguely imply something. Is it that you don't have the sack to say what you mean, or is it just the imagination you're lacking.

"Then again...with every rant you make on the internet, it's one less minute you can spend ruining your daughters life."
-Alphababedwetter

Well said, Alphaboy! An eloquent example of why young men of quality like yourself should have free reign over the tubes of the Internet. Seriously, do you have any self respect? Do you know what you sound like when you write something like that? Why would anyone take your opinions about anything seriously when you are obviosuly such an unpleasant person, 'Dude'?