Quote:
Originally posted by onetime2
His point (and it's one that I agree with) is that there is no room to disagree over the fact that terrorism is unacceptable. It is not acceptable to target innocent civilians. It is not acceptable to stand idly by while others do so. It is especially not acceptable to enable those who wish to kill innocents. Terrorism stands in direct opposition to civilization.
|
Again, I understand his point. And your agreement of it. I'll even grant that that is, indeed, his point.
My point is that when you say "you are either with us or against us" you can mean the above, but what many many people hear is "my way/process of fighting terrorism is the way you have to agree with".
Your last thought of:
Quote:
Feel free to disagree with the ways to fight terrorism since there is no suitable method that all could agree on, but don't for a second think that terrorism should be sanctioned either through direct support or inaction.
|
is precisely what people do not hear. Professional communicators should be help responsible for making statements that piss people off. And that's what that statement does. And it's a shame, cause after 9/11 we had the whole world on our side. There is no reason to drive them away.
People can say we don't need them, and trash talk other coutries all they like. It seems simple to me, however, that it can only HELP having the good graces of the world. Bush has pissed it away. And for no good reason.
Not sure how anyone can argue that point.