Bob: If ineptly, yes. What do you think I quoted it for?
If you'd actually taken the time to read with comprehension (which you apparently don't do ever, judging from some of the things you've said here), you'd see the rather important distinction that my original comment had nothing to do with whether you agreed with me or not, and everything to do with the fact that you've displayed as nuanced and well-read understanding of geopolitics and current events as a watermelon. I love to talk (or argue) politics with people, and rarely make the mistake of getting personally offended by a correction or retort, but when they haven't taken the time to know something about what they're talking about and insist that your opinions are more valid than anyone else's, it's annoying as all hell, in the same sense as a newbie storming onto the SCP board and demanding that you make agressor shields that magically shoot electric beams that can blow up a Ravana in one hit from any part of the ship within the week is annoying. Read a smegging newspaper, dude, and ideally don't make it the Weekly World News.
Sandwich: And do all of these bombers' families get that compensation? Is it enough of a guarantee that the suicide bomber can safely assume that his family will be rolling in it, as opposed to starving in the streets 'cos nobody in their family can get a job?
I probably estimated the value of $10G abroad (it's hardly enough to eat on here or have a house for a relatively small family here, and certainly not enough for more than maybe four years at absolute most) wrong, but it's still not exactly an inducement in and of itself, and at any rate it's the wrong kind of "terrorism" for Bush- it's the kind that Americans can't get paranoid about, 'cos poor Palestinian suicide bombers can't cross that inconveniently large and well-defended ocean.
Poll
