|
and so here we are again, ustwo:
1. in the above (no. 21) you are but a hair's breadth away from accusing everyone who does not agree with your position on this war as traitors. why do we continually find ourselves back here?
2. you might be persuaded that the questions about the legitimacy of the war are "moot"--but that is not a shared opinion outside the world of conservative media. as as an assertion about a general state of affairs, yours is arbitrary.
i know that this is the main way that the administration has tried to deal with the many many problems their rush to an ill-considered, unjustified war has created for them.
but it is simply a preference: it changes nothing about the facts of the matter.
3. you act as though the argument stevo began the thread with concerning the use of the word terrorist to describe what is going on in iraq is not problematic, ustwo, and this 21 posts into a thread across which over half have tried to raise exactly this problem. which you have not addressed. you act as though simply repeating your premise alot of times constitutes an argument for it.
you simply have not presented a case that stevo's position is justified.
try making an actual argument that the transposition of terms is justified.
4. you also act as though opposing the war in iraq means that you support the fighters who are working against the american occupation. that is not an obvious jump. in this case, i can see where it came from in the thread--but i do not think that it is accurate or interesting to conflate the two. i can see hwo it might be functional for you, given your politics--but i do not think it describes anything beyond the outline of your politics. could you spell out your logic please?
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear
it make you sick.
-kamau brathwaite
|