That’s for sure.
Sheesh.
The fact is, people can do both (express an opinion about the argument, and the express an opinion particular way you made the case against the argument), and on the face of things, there isn’t much real debate here on the argument.
You made the debate (partly) about her, just as anyone else here would be held responsible for things said about the people they dragged into similar cases. You didn’t make it about the reporter. You didn’t explain (and still haven’t given full context of) how this was explicitly or implicitly framed as an “argument against the war.” Again, knowing a lot about the standard formats that news reporters use to frame reports, I can think of many different rationales and spins for them to be making with this clip, not all of which line up with what you want to argue against.
I stand by my assertion that if you wanted to attack the argument with such determined vigor, the least you could do would be to pick a purer and more obvious statement of the view from some figure in the peace movement, or some Arab figure in the Middle East.
If this were a thread in which someone was bashing an argument for the particular means of god’s interaction, and the OP used a quote that DIDN’T actually make that argument (or even any argument at all, just expressing thanks), but then went on to call this person ignorant and without concern, you’d be just as bothered by that as I was by this. And you wouldn’t be less bothered just because the OP said the debate wasn’t about that particular person. In fact, I know this, because exactly this happened in the sniper-victim thread, when his thanking of God for his survival was attacked on the assumption that he lacked all conception for the contributions of his doctors.
I guess you didn’t see my message on the previous page where I said that my dad was in a similar situation in World War II. Allied bombers were killing his friends, but at the same time helping defeat Hitler. My dad was on the side of the bombers, because he knew that winning the war was their only long term hope.
Ed
Hi Ed,
If your dad is still alive, please give him my thanks for his service and congratulations on his wisdom.
I think we can probably all agree with a famous American general who said: “War is hell”.
And another quote:
“It is well that war is so terrible—we should grow too fond of it.”
Robert E. Lee
I suggest you review your own words.
I didn’t make this debate about her any more than you are attempting to make it about me. I’ve stated, restated, and stated again the issue. There are people who believe that the war stands condemned based on the deaths of innocent civilians. I’m interested in a debate on that.
It’s about her, in part, because your OP spends time dissecting her. And it isn’t about you, it’s about your OP.
And you got it… or sort of, if by debate you mean general agreement and a couple of hangers on. It’s not like no one here is clear on the issue, or has been avoiding it. My orignial objection to your rhetorical treatment of the woman was a minor addendum to my post.
Jabberwocky.
When I’m bored with a debate, I just move on to something else rather than hanging around and raising irrelevant objections in the form of minor addenda. If you have nothing to debate here and should decide to move on, we hangers-on will surely have to double up our efforts and bear considerably more weight in your absence, but we’ll manage.
I guess that the problem here, NaSultainne is that you have no idea what the word “equate” means. If I compare two things and find that they are not the same, that does not mean that I equated them.
If you can find a dictionary definition of “equate” that sheds some light on what the fuck you are talking about, please share it with me.
Lib, chicken out, get bored, as you wish. God forbid that you should actually debate.
First, you declared that I was chicken and had abandoned the thread. Now, you’ve declared that I am bored.
Frankly, your assessments of reality rival those of Iraq’s former Information Minister, Muhammad Sa’id al-Sahhaf. When will you declare that the thread really isn’t here?
That made me laugh, Lib. It really did, and I thank you for that. No snarkiness intended. 
I explained my thinking. I’m not sure what this explains.
I should note that I was responding to NaS, not simply running around bringing the issue up for no reason or as a personal slash and burn. This isn’t an “irrelevant objection” to the debate, it’s an objection to something that was presented as evidence of a view you are attacking.
I appreciate the cleverness of the sentance. But what would you say if it was directed at you, and you didn’t really want to snipe back?