Quote:
Originally Posted by Orruar
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
Eh, not really. The first point of my original post was a question for which you did stay on topic mostly. But you completely went off on a tangent with respect to the second point in the comparison of terrorism and chemical weapons. Going back to the cats/dogs analogy, I said that cats and dogs are similar in one respect and then theorized as to the implications of that similarity. You then came back with a post listing off the differences between cats and dogs. It has nothing to do with my point.
|
the second point is not a tangent -- it's the answer as to why condemnation of terrorism is not simply a tool to keep the poor from leveling the playing field. it's unrelated to the first point, which is why chemical warfare is different than conventional warfare
it's cool, though. you obviously don't want to discuss the merits of what you actually said, so you'd rather talk about cats and dogs