Quote:
Originally Posted by Daldolma
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
your points were simple and incorrect. there was no struggle to comprehend. you've yet to address those points and have now dragged on a discussion about a single, throw away sentence that i admitted from the start was based on skimming your post and missing a line. you win that point, bro -- you can quit belaboring it. unfortunately your actual points were wrong which is why you're running from them and nestling up with this ridiculous discussion of conflation
|
Yes, my points were simple and easy to understand, and yet you failed and continue to fail to understand them. Which is why I pull out the "cow goes moo" level analogies in hopes of helping you relate my points to something you may be more familiar with.
And I stand by everything I said. I still suspect we have an aversion to chemical weapons because of how easy it is to kill a bunch of people with them. Keep in mind when I say "we", I'm speaking about our military and civilian leaders, who are in positions of power to condemn/use weapons and wage war. I'm sure if you speak to all 300 million Americans, you can get a wide range of views on why they dislike chemical weapons. And I don't think there's a whole lot of difference between the Pak/Afgh population that is scared shitless about death from the sky and New Yorkers who are scared shitless about death from the sky. You may think our drones dropping bombs is much different than the 9/11 hijackers, but the effects are pretty much the same. A bunch of people die, and many more than that get to live in fear.
09-06-2013, 02:34 PM
Threaded Mode