Quote:
Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Let me get this straight:
-- Americans killed by terrorists before September 12, 2001, don't count.
-- Americans killed by terrorists after September 12, 2001, don't count, if they are killed in Iraq. Especially if they are soldiers (because, you know -- Rs really care about the troops... they just don't count.)
-- non-American's killed in America by terrorists after September 12, 2001 don't count
-- when passengers see another passenger about to blow up a plane by lighting a shoe bomb, and they stop him, that counts as a Republican accomplishment. Besides, the plane was over the Atlantic so if it had blown up, that wouldn't count.
-- Americans killed by terrorists in America after September 12, 2001, don't count if Hank believes that they are not "Islamists." Hank's reason for that belief is that, had they been "Islamists," they would have continued killing Americans in America, despite the fact that Hank also believes that Bush has effectively stopped all "Islamist" terrorist attacks on Americans in America. (Those terrorists couldn't have been Islamists, therefore Bush has a perfect record, because Islamists would have continued killing people, notwithstanding Bush's perfect record. Hank logic.)
Right?
|
If you don't also exclude Americans killed by terrorists in a secured compound for expatriates in Saudi Arabia, the Rs will end up having to explain that one. But it was a couple dozen Americans, so maybe it's just not "mass terrorism" and so it doesn't count.
As a matter of fact, I think you need a general exclusion for terrorism off US soil, because otherwise you have to check on how many Americans were killed in Spain or Bali or Pakistan or India in terrorist attacks - including some that were direct responses to our presence in Iraq.
Isn't the fundamental question whether we are safer today than we were when the Rs took office?
And isn't the answer obvious?
