Decius wrote:
oaknet wrote:
I didn't say you were defending US policy. I said you provide an apologist's prayer for unreasonable US behaviour.
U.S. Policy defines what U.S. "Behaviour" is.
Being an "apologist for U.S. Behaviour" is the same thing as being an apologist for "U.S. Policy."
If you disagree then please explain what, exactly, it is that you are talking about because clearly I don't get it. I don't understand how arguing that U.S. soldiers are not immoral for failing to quit their jobs is being an apologist of U.S. behaviour or whatever you want to call it.
Now, they say, we are justified in all and any acts of violence and retribution - because we were attacked first. Wrong - the violence began long before the Twin Towers, and some of the blame lies at our own feet.
I don't recall using the word "random". Nor did I say "bloodthirst" or "corruption. Are you hearing voices by any chance? ;-)
No, you didn't say random. You said "all and any acts of violence and retribution." Clearly, as random, bloodthirsty, and corrupt acts of violence and retribution are part of the overall set of acts of violence and retribution, the statement "all and any acts of violence and retribution" encompases those categories.
You make an emotional appeal against accusations that no-one has made.
You said "they say we are justified in all and any acts of violence..."
No one has said this, nor have they engaged in anything remotely approaching the sort of behaviour that this statement implies. Thats what I was reacting to. Saying that Americans might have reasonably decided to sign up for military service in the wake of a large scale domestic terrorist attack and that doing so is not immoral is not equivelent to arguing that the U.S. is justified in "all and any acts of violence and retribution."
Well, having agreed that you misquoted and misrepresented me - for which you deserve some credit - you go on to do it again, to indulge in non sequitur, and to play the usual sematic games. Enough, people can judge for themselves, certainly history will.
