Oh yes, and it’s not just a question of you having sources with “a different point of view.” You have made several statements of fact (in other threads) which are patently, demonstrably false.
What happened to the Cherokee was terrible, but you can make that argument without needing to create facts to support it.
How typical of you. Does your crusade have no boundaries of decency?
In that essay, he was speaking of the power-brokers, those who controlled the military industrial establishment, and not of everyone in general. He said that they had been “too busy braying, incessantly and self-importantly, into their cell phones, arranging power lunches and stock transactions, each of which translated, conveniently out of sight, mind and smelling distance, into the starved and rotting flesh of infants” to understand that they were feeding the military with profit. He called those men “little Eichmanns”.
The broader point he was making was that the terrorists were not cowards, but desperate men fighting the only way they know how.
By the way, are you conscious of the irony of making an ad hominem attack of this sort, given the original topic of this thread? …and given the arguments you have been making about debate techniques?