Quote:
Originally posted by Chefranden
I like that word hooey. It's just so wonderfully dismissive.
|
It said exactly what I meant.
Quote:
B]
what I'm saying is that if you look at their argument in the mirror it is our argument.
[/b]
|
I thought *your* argument was that we should listen more to *their* argument. *My* argument was "I've already listened enough to their argument". Since my listening didn't have the result they thought it should, they're now attacking noncombatant civilians in order to advance thier argument.
That isn't an argument anymore.
Quote:
I'm not seeking equivalency; I'm merely pointing it out.
|
I spoke metaphorically; you seek to point out equivalancy where there is none.
Quote:
B]
When you do it is merely regrettable collateral damage as opposed to their despicable villainy. I'm not sure how they describe the reverse but it will be something similar.
[/b]
|
The reverse? There is no reverse, this is why your "equivalancy" is so specious. Have you even heard them apologize for killing Muslims who were in the WTC? Of course not, they were guilty of being infidels merely for being there. They *have* no "collateral damage", their targets are broad enough that all their casualties are intentional, they all advance the cause.