"To refute your argument does not demand I supply alternate one."
Refute means to prove false. A simple statement that is not qualified in any way is hardly refuting.
"If you suggested that the best way to defend the US was to provide everyone with a 1971 Ford Econoline"
Susimple fact that TSA nailclipper searches do nothing to prevent another 9/11. re you can say it, but it doesnt prove anything." " TSa has nothing to do with it"
LoL OK.
I would go along with Air marshalls being on everyflight and be armed to the teeth. If Everyone is allowed to carry on a plane, that is a recipe for disaster.
Terrorist would LOVE less security for more easy operation, they love to operate unopposed and unhindered. You know like they had in the 90's. How many attacks in the 90's again?
"Ah, you flail desperately for some form of distraction again. My point was that I can try the silly guilt-by-association game "
It was you that flailed desperately and your hitler anaolgy failed miserably.
Ilike watching you squirm about it now.
"Let me just see if I can get you to clarify that statement first: the degree of intent to harm or actual harm is irrelevant, only that there is intent to harm at all, or a disregard for the fair to good odds of harm occuring, that is enough to make the two crimes of terrorism and drunk driving equivalent. Do I characterize your position properly? Please correct if I'm not right there."
Terrorist do not care who they harm with the actions they take. When you have too much to drink and make the choice to drive, you do the very same thing. Total disregard of the harm that comes to others.
"enough to make the two crimes of terrorism and drunk driving equivalent."
Showing truthful similarities is hardly claiming equivelence. It is what it is, a comparison of similarities.
Truth hurts don't it.
Driving when you have had too much to drink is shown to harm and kill people. People chose to do it anyway.
Some call it unintended damage when they crash when they knew the risk before hand. This makes it intentional on that level. They knew the risk and took it anyway.
Terrorist are akin in their actions in this way. They want to kill infedels and even though they know the risk of blowing them up endangers fellow muslims, they do it anyway.
Both after they do it attempt to justify what it is they did. They rationalize and spin and try to create a cloud that seeks to muddy the waters to absolve themselves of the personal decision they made to take the action they did.
Can you show me where that statement of similarity is inaccurate?
I've come to a point where I simply will cease trading posts with you, one I should have arrived at some posts ago, but I thought perhaps that someone actually answered you might make you consider that you're simply advocating another nailclipper-banning move. However, since it's obvious you actually LIKE the nailclipper bans, and based on the 'responses' you posted here, I am no longer willing to waste my time with you. So I'll go waste my time some other way, and bid you good luck with your simple, ineffective plans to rid the world of 'drunk' drivers and nailclipper-toting 'terrorists.' I assure you they are much more likely to have government support than anything effective, anyway, so I'm certain you'll have the allies you need to get 'solutions' like these passed. Be proud of your 'success.'