Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Normal
No fallacy here. Everything I said about al-Qaida is straight out of bin Ladin's own speeches. In his famous offer of a truce to George W. Bush, one of his conditions was that Bush accept Allah and make Islam the official religion of America. I'm not saying that it is rational to think that there will be an Islamic government in America, I'm saying that these are al-Qaida's goals, and this is what they are trying to do.Once again, I'm not talking about a nation state here. You are simply attacking a straw man when you are debating this point. I'm talking about terrorist groups attacking America with the financial support of nation states. If America declared neutrality tomorrow we would still be getting terrorist attacks. I don't think anyone could debate against that.It seems that you are trimming your theory now. It started out saying "if you are neutral, you won't get attacked." Then it was "if you are neutral and have good defenses you won't get attacked." Now it seems like its "you'll get attacked, but if you have a big military it won't be a successful attack." Have you completely given up on the neutrality portion of your argument?
No fallacy here. Everything I said about al-Qaida is straight out of bin Ladin's own speeches. In his famous offer of a truce to George W. Bush, one of his conditions was that Bush accept Allah and make Islam the official religion of America. I'm not saying that it is rational to think that there will be an Islamic government in America, I'm saying that these are al-Qaida's goals, and this is what they are trying to do.
Once again, I'm not talking about a nation state here. You are simply attacking a straw man when you are debating this point. I'm talking about terrorist groups attacking America with the financial support of nation states. If America declared neutrality tomorrow we would still be getting terrorist attacks. I don't think anyone could debate against that.
It seems that you are trimming your theory now. It started out saying "if you are neutral, you won't get attacked." Then it was "if you are neutral and have good defenses you won't get attacked." Now it seems like its "you'll get attacked, but if you have a big military it won't be a successful attack." Have you completely given up on the neutrality portion of your argument?
