Originally posted by midwinter
It's the difference between saying "I disagree with you" and saying "You support the enemy" plus "You clearly hate America."
Those elements are not necessarily inherently tied to the anti-war stance. However, they are not eliminated as possibilities, as well. One only needs to examine the contexts of the posts to ascertain if either, both, or neither are true about the person.
No. Berg's death is a great tragedy. No one deserves to die in such a horrible manner. Berg most certainly did not ask for this to happen to him. Berg did willingly enter a war-zone, however, and it's more than a bit disingenuous to argue as if he were unaware of this fact.
So you would bemoan the deaths of innocent Iraqis caught in crossfire over and over, yet when an innocent American gets entangled into same, he should have known better (hence the natives are absolved from guilt in participating in the act)?
I don't know what bizarro world you live in, but I don't know ANYONE who thinks that AQ is "blameless"--even for things that they were unconnected with. Indeed, for the past decade, AQ has been public enemy number one.
It's not a bizzare world at all. You can
actually read of people who speak of absolving AQ of this and that in varied degrees, and quickly pointing to all the atrocity done by the US to divert the ensuing discussion. If you are not aware that these posts exist (or even aware of its presence in your own posts to a particular degree
), that really begs the issue of blinders.
No. When our soldiers, who our tax dollars have trained, and who wear the American flag on their uniforms, and who, in those uniforms, are de facto representatives of the US, beat people to death, rape them, sic dogs on them, force them to simulate homosexual sex acts, parade them around naked in front of women, force them to masturbate in front of women, and are IDIOTIC ENOUGH TO PHOTOGRAPH AND VIDEOTAPE IT like some teenagers our videotaping a crime spree, we hold them accountable.
Yes, too bad the enemy doesn't do the same for their own members. You also do our soldiers a disservice by implying that the acts of a few are representative of the whole. It is also naive to expect that beatings, rapes, deaths, and the like do not occur in prisons.
Ideally, we should get this situation cleaned up, but it is
not a hospital ward, and the inmates aren't exactly "tourists".
Paranoia and hyperbole are no substitute for argument.
It does emphasize a point. If you missed the argument, you should go back and read more carefully.
Your implication here is that if AQ had its own country and military, it would still use unconventional paramilitary tactics to bring about political change. Is this the case? Seriously. Is this what you're arguing?
You read too much into it. All I was saying is that they will seize opportunities to terrorize and develop a control base wherever/whenever they come. They are not watching event for event and deciding, "we got to get them back for this." They'll label it as such, when something comes up, but if nothing comes up, it's not like they go on layoff.
I don't understand this sentence. Could you explain what you mean? I'm sincere about this.
As opposed to? I'm really not sure where you're headed here.
No elaboration required. If it has no meaning when you
read it, disregard it.
I don't understand this. Are you suggesting that we should abandon the "standards" (by which I assume you mean moral/ethical standards) we held when we entered the war? Are you suggesting that we should feel free to torture and behead and mutilate and rape prisoners?
This is a problem (on your part). I just got done saying we should maintain the standards we had when we came into this.
Your claiming that I've said the complete opposite amounts to no more than putting words in my mouth. Do not proceed.
OK. Sure. You're the one going around and saying that everyone who disagrees with you is a de facto member of al Qaeda.
No where have I identified anyone specifically. Therefore, the claim that I have addressed "everyone who disagrees with me" as falling into a particular category is invalid. Perhaps, you have identified that you
disagree with me based on the descriptions I gave. Either you feel it applies to you or not. That can be indicative of something or nothing at all. A lot of it will come from how aggressively you reply, I suppose. Anyone is free to draw their own conclusion... I simply put something that has been hanging in the air finally into words.