Quote:
|
Come on guys, let's get a real fight going here--not change the subject everytime somebody scores a hit
|
Dick, you really must mind what you say, when it is so likely to directly implicate you.
You have not answered the question, although, as I understand it, you have gotten quite exercised over the notion that I personally speak for the armed forces (something I never claimed, although I did explain the attitude of acquaintances
in the armed forces over these disgraces.)
You've also confused my disgust at
my military's behaviour - and make no mistake, the military is supposed to work for us, not the other way around, in a democracy - with the attitude of some phantom opponent who believes that the excesses of others must be weighed in order to determine one's own adherence to his own code of conduct.
This is also an error on your part. If you encounter the opponent you are seeking, have that argument with him.
I want to stick the the subject you changed over from, on your flight from the question: Are you or are you not in support of urinating on holy books which serve as the predominant religious symbol of an enemy, notwithstanding that the book in question is also holy to many of your fellow citizens?
If so, is it best undertaken as an individual soldier's perogative, or should it be top-down, United States policy to urinate on holy books?
I will await your answer. In the meantime, let me clear up some more of your misconceptions. You got responses earlier to your specious argument against those who feel the urination issue had been weighed and judged to be worse than the actions of a suicide bomber. Others challenged you on it - since nobody seems to know anyone who makes the argument you claim to refute. Your response: "don't you watch the news?" - presumably, you have missed the point. They are not challenging that either the urination or the bombing happened; they are challenging that anybody makes the argument you purport to refute. Coincidentally, your refutation of the wrong argument sealed your fate regarding the right one. Since both events have garnered recent media attention, it is difficult to argue that the suicide bombing has been ignored in favor of the desecration. Rather, as is fitting, both have been treated as newsworthy.
Now don't forget that answer to the real question, Dick. For or against? As policy or individual soldier's perogative?
Let's skip the ad-homs and the lib-baiting. I don't care about who is president for this answer. I don't care about the parties. I don't care about whether you like Fox or CNN. I don't care about what you think I believe. I care about taking this one point at a time, to guard against the subject-changing you so recently lamented.
So, just answer the question.
Regards,
Dan
[This message has been edited by Dan Halberstein (edited June 07, 2005).]