The typical straw man argument is trotted out yet again that balanced argument is somehow supporting the Islamists. That Bill O'Reilly stuff getting a bit worn out mate.
there was no argument in his post that i could detect wayne. i hardly consider my comments a straw man argument.
Simply rattling off the number of deaths in the US and UK hardly constitutes a refutable argument. do you consider the fact that he has omitted many many deaths from the "toll" as balanced argument?
The truth is B, that statistically, there is more risk of being killed by the local nut-case than any terrorist attack. The impingement of civil liberties is simply not warranted by the actual threat and actually does SFA to stop the terrorism anyway.
what impingement of civil liberties are you referring to wayne? not being able to take toothpaste on a plane?
how are you able to say the measures introduced actually do SFA?
we have seen arrests in australia. are you able to say nothing would have happened had these arrests not taken place?