a reply to: vethumanbeing
In for 2 bits, in for 2 pounds
I am going to respond to your most recent reply to me in three parts (A, B, C - In bullet point fashion).
Firstly, I believe it is only fair to ask, the most pertinent question, to which avatar persona I am dealing with - Vethumanbeing or DontTreadOnMe
because BOTH seem to have the ability to edit your posts.
• This is the SECOND time (1st was your original post) wherein you unscrupulously attempt to inject new "facts" into the conversation which are
meant to reveal the TRUE motivations for this man to go to a foreign land and engage in WAR. This is a blatant ploy to redirect and a direct
contradiction to the EXACT words HE used when explaining to his Mother why he BELIEVED it was imperative that immediate personal action must be taken
to obey a command, received in SECRET COMMUNICATIONS with (THE ONE TRUE - my emphasis) GOD.
The basline for a legitimate debate HERE/NOW is the SOURCED article in the OP's original post (hearsay, supposition, assumptions are NOT a correct
definition of legitimate Opinion - they are evidence of prejudicial bias and obvious attempts at discrimination...thus disrespect.
* I (nor the honorable members of this "community") don't care who you source. Fox/Faux News, Associated/Affliated Press, Reuters/Routers...blah
blah/yada yada...You can have RED i.o.u (s) or BLUE instruments of debt...just pass GO! Tomato/To Mato, if you don't bring anything REAL to the table,
you don't get credit in helping to make the sauce!
I watched/read (aka LURKING) for a long time to get a basic understanding of proper ETIQUETTE allowed by the survivors of this utopia.
RULE#1- ALL "FACTS" MUST BE SOURCED.
Therefore, when you step outside the spirit of fair sportsmanship, you should/will be called on it.
**Also in YOUR original post you say you saw him on t.v. (I can't correctly embed video in my posts yet either - but i can copy/paste URL).
In your reply above you "UP THE ANTE" by saying "I saw HIM twice(2) on Fox". I'm not good in Poker/cards but I saw that TELL.
• While I agree with you that there is a CENTRAL premise here, your statement of obsfucation does NOTHING to find common ground; and I quote -
"The fruitlessness of such wars other than human extermination based upon religious dogma?"
I deduce a craven attempt (I hope not) of managing to SIMULTANEOUSLY say EVERYTHING & NOTHING at all. If I am mistaken, in what I infer as another
example of deception...please simplifiy/clarify it for me.
• While I agree with you this is literally the epitome of Greek Tragedy, I think it is also IRONIC...that in the same breath, you shoot yourself in
the foot - "ALMOST"...??? Perhaps you missed the complete impact of my anology...MOTH TO A FLAME.
If I'm sitting outside at the FAMILY's BBQ and in a moment of quiet reflection, I notice an unfortunate creature purposely fly into the Bug Zapper, I
am saddened the ultimate conclusion is inevitable. I may, then question why another species (other than Homo Sapiens) has this INEXPLICABLE
predilection to defeat its only existence. When I turn that thinking inward to the human experience, I see imbalance. My next thought is to examine
the corollaries between the two species and...
...I remember I am presently at a family BBQ and I should STOP STARING AT THE FIRE in the firepit and continue to socialize...cordially!
• I quote (with your emphasis)
"What makes this man killing another IN DEFENSE (not agressively) any different than the murderous cowards he was fighting; everything, as he was
defending the right of a people to exist."
* I think the last part should be addressed first.
"...as he was defending the right of a people to exist."
- THIRD(3) EXAMPLE OF UNFOUNDED CONJECTURE (I.e. Spin).
In hopes of finding any common ground, I would like to break this down further, as an opportunity to explain the heart of the CENTRAL IDEA;as I see it
(my opinion). ---
"...The right of a people to exist."
Respect is the central core of HONOR. There is no splitting of hairs in defending the concept of Honor.
**Now...back to the beginning of the statement.
I quote (with your emphasis)
"What makes this man killing another IN DEFENSE (not aggressively) any different than the murderous cowards he was fighting;..."
I will give you the benefit of the doubt and refrain from accussing you of being deliberately obtuse.
Thus, in looking at this phrase only, I am stuck believing either your delivery was at fault or your logic is temporarily convoluted. So...
- Issue #1 Passive aggressive tactics don't have the usual AFFECT upon me.
- Issue #2 When you formulate an ATTACK plan towards another's homebase, you must realize you are not in a defense posture. You must accept that you
see the position of AGGRESSOR beneficial to your cause. I also suggest you must realize & accept ALL WARS ARE ECONOMIC IN ORIGION!
- Issue#3 I quote (with MY emphasis) "...MURDEROUS COWARDS..." Once again there is NO HONOR WITHOUT RESPECT and that is a pathetic jab at unbalancing
a percieved opponents emotional stability; also not effective here (with me anyway).
- Issue#4 "...killing another...what difference...everything;...etc."
Please reread the section (B) before going any farther.
- Issue#5 I never discussed or mentioned "...the killing of innocent woman and children." In any of my previous posts. When I spoke of tragic loss of
LIFE/LIVES I was speaking about the grunts on the ground who see thru the Fog of War and know with out a doubt they are in a clusterf*ck canoe in a
sh*tty sandstorm. The (sad but) usual casualties of War, women and children, is or should be abundantly clear...it's why I did not mention them.
I am not even going to continue on to the personal attacks in Section C.
I think I'll go get some potato salad and pickles and chips...Don't worry I'm not leaving...do you need anything?
edit on 12-6-2015 by fshrrex because: proper spacing
edit on 12-6-2015 by fshrrex because: same