That comment came from the same jackass who, earlier in that very thread called the United States an insane country. Here’s the actual quote:
The U.S. decided that winning was more important than people’s lives (as any sane nation would).
[/quote]
I submit that there is a decided difference between ignorant and just too stupid to breathe. I further submit that, assuming Monocracy is alive today, it is an ongoing miracle that he or she is breathing.
Honestly, I thought he was saying that any sane country would do exactly what the US did… of course, the grammar is a bit vague so he could have meant either. I think his later statement, equating the nuclear attacks to an act of war, instead of terrorism, to indicate he believed the US was sane.
I don’t buy it, Cheesesteak. He clearly said that the US was out to win the war at any cost and didn’t care about saving lives “like any sane country would have.”
Hey, if he can’t make sense to himself, WTF does he expect others to think?
You may not buy it, Monty, but I’ll bet you many dollars to many doughnuts that Chessesteak’s interpretation is right on the money. I interpreted it the same way. And I suspect that if Monocracy cruises the Pit, this will be a non-issue shortly, after he clarifies it for you.
If you’d like, I can restate his sentence in a different way: “The US decided, as any sane nation would, that winning was more important than people’s lives.” Decided to my eyes, is the only verb in that sentence, and thus is what the partenthetical “as any sane nation would” refers to.
Monocracy said that the US acted as a sane country would. You misinterpreted his statement. He corrected you. You then started a Pit thread presenting your original interpretation, which Monocracy hismself (herself?) stated was in error. Mononcracy never stated that the US was out to win at any cost, never stated that it didn’t care about saving lives, and never said that the US was insane. Your continued insistence that your straw man represents the actual position of Monocracy, and that his own words are of less importance than what you think he said, makes your reference to him as a “jackass” rather hypocritical. There is simply no way reasonable interpretation of the quote other that that Monocracy believes that the US acted in a sane manner, and the only way you were able to make it sound otherwise was to completely rewrite the quote.
Hey, Ryan, and more importantly, Monocracy, if that’s what he really meant, then fine.
Now how about a retraction of the US ending the war in the best (quickest & least deaths on both sides) fashion possible then being terrorism.
Maybe that’s why I got so “sensitive” on the issue. I don’t see a legit target during a declared war carried out by a legit military being remotely akin to what bin-Laden’s pals did.
I still can’t understand how you derived the exact opposite meaning from my statement, especially after i made it clear in my next post what i meant. I had to add the parenthesis after my statement because it looked like i was criticizing the US, when in fact i was just pointing out the that US did what any other country would do in that position.
For the love of Odin, please, please, please read my post (i’m assuming your above quote was directed at me). I specifically said that what the US did to Japan was NOT terrorism, but an act of war. I also said that the 9-11 attacks were an act of war and not terrorism. If you want to argue about that, fine … but please don’t argue about things that i did not say.
The problem is that you’ll make definitions of “legit” that will satisfy Hiro and Naga, but not 9-11. It’s called rationalising … coming to a conclusion, then finding the facts to support it.
Mon: I’m sorry I misunderstood your original posting. The way you appended the parentheses looked to me like you were saying that a sane nation would be concerned about saving lives, not “winning at all costs.” Now that we’ve both (and others) have hashed that to the ground, let’s move on.
Too many people are throwng around that any act of war is an act of terrorism and vice versa. It just ain’t so. The Geneva/Hague Conventions delineate acts of war. War crimes are not subsets of terrorism nor is terrorism a subset of war. Each is a particular type of crime. War itself is not terrorism.
Also, the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not, are not, and never will be terrorism. They were acts of war. Said acts bringing that particular war to an end.
FWIW, I feel that calling the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 an act of war gives a certain legitimacy to the perpetrators; something they certainly do not mert.
Maybe you’ll understand why I’m misunderstanding your appraisal of the US’s actions: You equate a particular act of terrorism with an act of war. You are mistaken in that.