Sorry Mr Duck.

I only respond to posters who submit premises supported by reasoned arguments. Just frothing at the mouth and throwing around a bunch of wacky conspiracy theories and unsupported allegations does not cut it. Although it does help to make any intelligent and impartial young reader who has the capacity for reasoned thought, decide just which side of the cultural divide is the more credible, and which side has lost their composure and is just hopping around in red faced apoplexy.

You can do a lot better than that. Remember, if you get angry and display that anger, you are thinking entirely emotionally. Thinking emotionally has it's uses, but not in reasoned debate. It is more useful as a conditioned response to a problem requiring a fast decision.

First of all, name who this Texan person you seem to dislike , and tell us why you do not like him.

Tell us why you think that the US General was wrong to consider several Muslim countries to be a threat to the US and the free world.

Since Hillary Clinton is the darling of the Left, it seems odd that you don't like her also. What is your general worldview regarding US actions around the world and why do you think that way?

Write sentences with subjects and predicates, and paragraphs consisting out four or five sentences fully explaining a particular idea.

If you can do that, then impartial readers might take you seriously.

To Mr Shadow Minister.

Which aspects of my analysis do you disagree with, and why?

how's about :
"Just frothing at the mouth and throwing around a bunch of wacky conspiracy theories and unsupported allegations does not cut it."

Daffy,

You forget that Qaddafi and his mates set about sponsoring terrorists that bombed a jumbo jet and a night club in Germany among other acts.

Lego,

For example most african countries also vote along tribal lines, and muslim countries in the 60s were reasonably liberal, fanatical Islam is a more recent disease