Answering a syllology is a wasted exercise, so rather, I've tried to provide you and ophir a good lesson about proof by assertion. I'm not sure if you look at ophir's links (when he details them), but they are quite laughable and actually detract from 'the cause' - you need a quiet word offline
Your monotonous pre-occupation with the history and what not of al qaeda is dogging you - the old chinese whispers and my enemy's enemy is my friend web of confusion has you completely bogged down in a quagmire.
Seriously suggest you go to the dictionary and look up the meaning of "syllogism" and have a think about the definition in relation to many of the assertions of you and the core of the CTers on here.
If guilt by association is really your game, well, it is a very basic and simplistic approach used by those not well versed in their subject and with little else to argue with, but it is a fallacy...
...however, if that is your style of teaching and you want to persist with this approach, that's your prerogative (although I'm sure even the great Ronsterm is indeed guilty by association many/most times he posts ;-)
Will check back in later - work must take precedence over play.
