Quote:
Originally Posted by Orruar
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
Well, it sort of does the impact the argument, since the entire argument was based on the notion that I was conflating the two terms.
|
literally none of the argument is reliant on that
you asked what makes chemical weapons "special", which i took to mean more flagrantly unacceptable than conventional weaponry. i explained the material differences between chemical and conventional warfare.
you then ascribed condemnation of terrorism to a desire to keep poor people from evening the playing field. i explained that a) that's incorrect and b) the underlying principle which condemns terrorism is the same underlying principle that demands american restraint and has greatly benefited the other side of the "war on terror" for the duration of this conflict
you're free to disagree, but none of the points that followed were founded on a conflation of the two