all-encompassingly

in logic class on wednesday, we were discussing “consistency.” our professor’s position, in short, is that as humans in the complex modern world, we can’t be consistent. “consistency is nice for computers, but unlikely for humans.” –dr. carter.

for our purposes, let’s assume the following definition of “consistent”: “not contradictory; a consistent set of statements.”

lately, making “a consistent set of statements” has been very hard for saudi arabians. they claim that the terrorists (representing the “religion of peace”) chose their latest target because it was vulnerable and because terrorists will strike any ’soft target’ they can. this explanation contrasts somewhat with the alternative: that they attacked the location because western infidels live there. but let’s say they are right. is their second statement concerning the incident consistent with their first? let’s see.

the US had requested the saudis improve security around compounds where westerners in saudi arabia reside. [full text-describes US security requests]

why wasn’t security stepped up at these compounds, as the US had requested? (we’ll ignore the question of ‘why is the US telling saudi arabia where westerners in the kingdom live and how to protect them). according to the saudi ambassador to the US in his interview with CNN’s anderson cooper, they examined the security at the compounds and determined that they had “adequate security” (i.e., “were not soft targets”).

ah, yes. the inconsistency. so, mr. ambassador, were they “soft targets” or were they not “soft targets”? if they were soft targets, why didn’t you do anything about them? in other words, where’s the love, towel-head? if they were not soft targets, it is even more clear that your countrymen have some tolerance issues. the terrorists accepted the greater risk of failure in order to attack the infidels (which is what we suspected all along, but which you denied).

but most importantly, the “religion of peace” itself seems to be a bit of a contradiction, when you compare their fetish for killing innocent people with the meaning of the word “peace“.