'US planning strike against Iran'
posted by Pat Campbell @ 7:59 AM
6 comments
PC1170
PC1170 is the blog of Pat Campbell morning host at 1170 KFAQ in Tulsa, OK.
Monday, January 02, 2006
About Me
- Name: Pat Campbell
- Location: Tulsa, OK, United States
Time Magazine's Person of the Year 2006
Previous Posts
- Must Read:Live and let spy by Ann Coulter
- Identity Theft 101
- (Not so) grand marshal
- Big changes coming to The Orlando Sentinel in 2006
- Central Floridians Warned About New Year's 'Sky Sh...
- Most outrageous statements of 2005
- ABC, Diane Sawyer Push Anti-Catholic "Pope Joan" Tale
- MT1 Reads You E-Mail for On-the-Go Access
- America's Favorite Pastime "Second Guessing the Cops"
- This just in from our "Any Port In A Storm" Dept.
6 Comments:
"Crushing response?" Those of us in the western world know that a battle or war in which we lose ten tanks and the enemy loses 500 tanks is not a crushing blow from the enemy, however, as Saddam showed us, if the guy who loses the 500 tanks controls the home country's news media, he can convince his sheeple that he did indeed deliver a crushing blow.
"Crushing" is a relative term. What amounts to nothing more than a small strike against the U.S. can be spun into a crushing blow by Iranian spin-meisters.
Occupiers? Nice straw man. There won't be any occupation.
If a strike comes against Iran, it most likely will be a series of air strikes designed to reduce and slow the Iranian nuke program. (It's too spread out to kill it entirely as the Israelis nailed the Iraqi nuclear reactor.)
The Iranians' "crushing blow" will most likely be a few Scud missiles shot at U.S., British, and Polish forces in Iraq, plus a few thrown at Israel to solicit support from Jew-hating Arabs, who generally don't care for their historical Iranian enemies and who would normally welcome seeing Iran brought a few notches.
"jeb": "...george shows up (the man who wouldn't fight for his county)...."
Actually, W. volunteered for Viet Nam duty, but was turned down, because he didn't have enough experience in fighter jets.
When your "logic" is based upon myth, your conclusions cannot be expected to be correct.
As Pat Campbell would say, "I hate sweeping generalizations." You have some nutziod idea that "all" Muslims hate us. You also seem to think that anybody who doesn't see the world as ass backwards as you is some kind of traitor. Where do you live in Stalinist Russia?
Hey "jeb:"
The phrase "All of those who hate us are muslims" is not equivalent to saying "All muslims hate us." You're making the same mistake that Readers Digest made many years ago, when they reported that 100% of heroin addicts started with the gateway drug, marijuana; the (logically-incorrect)implication was that, if you smoke marijuana, then you're 100% certain to become a heroin addict.
You may want to find somebody who understands symbolic logic and ask for an explanation of the relationship among a statement, the converse of that statment, the inverse of that statement, and the contrapositive of that statement.
Warning! Learning something about logic may make it impossible to continue thinking as a liberal.... unless, of course, you choose to continue ignoring logic.
Oh, wait. I forgot. For liberals, it's all about compassion, never about logic.
OOOPS !!!
I just realized, I mistakenly attributed the lack of logic to "jeb," whereas it really came from "anonymous."
Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.
Post a Comment
<< Home