I’m not sure a) why you’re questioning my sanity, or b) why you felt it necessary to do so three times.
Let’s say, for the sake of argument, that something awful happens to us. Like, perhaps, a terrorist attack on big buildings.
If, for the sake of argument, we as a nation are doing something that irritates one group enough that they attack our big buildings, would it not behoove us to KNOW that our actions are irritating someone to that extent?
Or would it be better to pretend that although we are told we’re irritating, we ignore it and proceed on our irritating way?
Just for the sake of argument, mind you.
Because where I come from, it’s one thing to defeat the enemy from outside. It’s another entirely, and often far more effective, to get inside his head, learn what he thinks and why, and use it against him.
You don’t seem to understand that Islamic terrorism has been going on for hundreds of years. What’s “irritating” them is our prosperity, freedom, and power.
He, like Arafat and Islamic terrorists and any number of fascists that preceded him, gain power by creating a “boogie man” to use to make people believe like they’ve been victimized. Hitler did it, and even people in this country do it.
It’s an easy way to gain power from the people you “represent” without having to do anything to improve their lives.
If you want to give credibility to their bull$hit, go ahead. I don’t see much difference from one fascist to the next...despite minor modifications in their propaganda.