I make no such error, nor do I believe that. I said, “Calling a person who supported the continuance of Saddam Hussein’s regime and who continues, over and over again, to cast every new revelation, whether true or not, as ‘proof’ that overthrowing his regime was somehow evil a ‘Saddamite’…”
More to the point, this thread is not about who is or is not a Saddamist or even about supporting or opposing the Iraq war. It is about the rules in GD. I maintain that in a forum where “Republicans support torture” is allowed to exist without admonishment my construction was within the rules, whether or not reasonable people might disagree about the specific application of it.
… so I can call you a cockbite, and it is OK now? Y’know, because reasonable people might agree with the specific application of it.
Go ahead, make a thread saying, “Democrats support torture.” Maybe you can post more sob stories about how much you truly and deeply care about the poor people of the world.
So, how does this work? It’s clear that insults are allowed if you support/supported/participated in the war or if you are a Bush supporter. I’m curious as to why that door only swings the one way.
Frankly, I’d much rather be referred to as a “Saddamite” than as a “murderer”. One was OK, the other is not. And that still chafes my ass.
Methinks there needs to be a bit more consistency here, guys. You either allow backhanded insults or you don’t, and if you do then the criteria should be applied evenly across the spectrum, not just when it suits your mood.
Yea, didn’t we all agree that if you wear a uniform, it isn’t murder?
Support your troops as they bravely carpetbomb Najaf!
I’d rather be called a murderer than a Saddamite. Does this mean that you support the regime of Saddam over the loss of a few innocent lives? Are you a Saddamite?
Murder is a legal distinction amongst types of homicide. Homicides resulting from duly executed, legal orders are not murder.
Pretty straightforward, hard to confuse.
Occasionally firing a $2 million missile at a $10 empty tent and hitting a camel in the butt may not be the most effective way to combat international terrorists, but it does keep the camels on their toes!
I don’t see much difference in the connotation of the two. Saddam was murderous. A Saddamite or Saddamist would, by inference, be one who supports murder or at least this murderous villian.
I cannot understand how anyone who gave this serious thought could make a such an illogical jump by labelling someone who supports peaceful negotiation as a Saddamite. It is also mean-spirited, shortsighted and inflammatory.
I don’t know of anyone at SDMB who has supported Saddam. Such distortions and attacks are cheapshots and unworthy of GD. If an argument has to depend on complete distortion of reality, then that debater has lost the debate.
BTW, Airman, I am not generally pro-military about much of anything. But the most noble person that I have ever known was a graduate of the Air Force Academy. He was my friend for 58 years.
Further, nothing in this post should be construed against you. I used your quote, but my comments are for the OP.
You know what, I am with you on the OP. I don’t find your use of the word “Saddamite” any worse than the example you quoted. But, I sure hope that is not the standard of debate you want to aspire to!
As per your definition above, any individual who is vehemently opposed to the war could be called a Saddamite. Can you tell me what revelations we have seen thus far that should convince the war skeptics? In fact, even under the assumption that SH had WMD, there were many people against overthrowing his regime by force. Are we Saddamites too? I think it is likely that some of the anti-war crowd loathe Bush and tend to spin every news from Iraq against Bush. It doesn’t imply any support for SH’s regime.
Better yet: you started off your post in that thread addressing a bunch of Dopers as Saddamites. Why don’t you list some of their names and show me how they have continually supported SH’s regime?
