Quote:
Originally posted by MaggieL
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.
|
Don't be silly Maggie, there is always a reverse. How would we know if he apologized or not? We are certainly not allowed by our media or government to listen to what they have to say. Neither do we apologize for our "benign" yet intentional collateral damage. If we mistake a wedding party for Al-Quida henchmen well so be it. Most of those 5000 or so Afghani citizens we've killed are as innocent as the people in the towers and your intentionality argument makes them no less dead. I don't think we've apologized for that.
But that is not the point. You seem to insist that I am defending his actions, when I'm only saying that they are similar to ours. I condemn his blowing people up and our blowing people up. I am condemning blowing people up as the solution to blowing people up.
I have perhaps made the mistake of thinking that because of your articulate posts that you think more with your
Neo Cortex rather than your Limbic System . I don't mean that as an insult. Most people pay more attention to the Limbic System than to their logical faculties, which is why the
obvious solution is so hard to bring about.
In an attempt to break through I'll keep it simple this time.
Maggie's argument:
I am the good guy ,
bin Laden is the evil guy.
I am the good guy ,
Maggie is the evil guy.
bin Laden's argument: