“Your headline didn’t. You had to be asked by me what you were talking about.”
My headline was clear.
In response to your retentive post, I gave you an example of what rising up against islamo-fascism means, even asking you if you thought it might mean that.
If you think that the free world is already rising up against islamo-fascism, then you need not apply as the unthinking deluded are ipso facto excluded from thought experiments.
If you think that the free world has yet to rise up against islamo-fascism, then enter your own idea of what you think that means instead of trying to split hairs with me.
If all you want to do is quibble, then you are a contributor to the problem with the country and the world, not a contributor to the solution.
Under new federal transportation rules, airport security is so tight that passengers need to arrive at the airport two hours early and take off their shoes. We're spending tens of billions of dollars on a Homeland Security agency. We're spending $2 billion a week on the Iraq war? Yet there are still some folks who say we're not responding to terrorism. In my book, we're responding very vigorously - you have to ignore all the new federal rules and the federal spending and the military lives put at risk, to say we're not responding to terrorism. You also must not travel much, because the security hassles of post 9-11 air travel would persuade you very quickly that we're not ignoring terrorism.