Not to endlessly repeat myself, but that’s not at all what I’m saying. I’m saying that Rashak Mani, if he wants to discuss misconceptions about AQ, has to do more than link an article and say, “Here. This is interesting; y’all can learn something.” As you show, some of this has been covered many times on this board by yourself. Thus, also as I said, it’s ain’t new. But if people didn’t get it in the several examples you posted, what on earth would make anyone think it’ll become clearer by just posting a link to an article? The discussion needs to be directed to the points the topic starter wants to make. You gotta lead people to their errors. Rashak refused to do that. Since apparently nothing in the article seems important enough to him that it should be drawn out for discussion, then I’m only left to wonder what value the article has at all. So, I read through the thing. And I found nothing that, as you have shown, is new here. So I asked Rashak again and again. He’s still refused to tell us what he found so interesting and valuable that we should immediately recognize it. It seems an unacceptable, to me, use of this forum. That is my gripe; it is not at all with the topic, it’s the manner in which it was presented.
To use your example, do you think it would be acceptable for me to start a new thread with nothing but a link to an article at CSICOP.org about homeopathy and say, “Here, this is interesting. Read it and learn something.” It’d be a damn poor forum if all it contained was links to articles about everyone’s pet topics.
I should add to what where I said above, “As you show, some of this has been covered many times on this board by yourself,” that you have covered it very well.
In addition, I find myself puzzled that I have to explain all this to you. Did you not say pretty much the same thing in the very first reponse to this thread: “Come on, Rashak, it’s GD - what’s your point of view? If you’re agreeing with the stuff in your link, say so…” To which Rashak, in part, replied, “My main intention was posting an interesting article more than anything.”
Then there’s this—a particular line from Rashak I find extremely irksome: “Thanks for starting the debate instead of asking for one…” What the hell is that? What does he think both you and I have been asking for?
Yeah, forgot about the post #2. I see what you mean now, unclebeer. I do think people need to know about this stuff, but we need more of a debate topic for GD.
Rashak, want to frame the debate for us? I enjoy arguing about this kinda stuff, just give me a starting point. How about this:
Rashak: I posit that all the stuff in this link is true and that this shows that certain Bush Administration statements and policies are false.
That would get me a CITE as for Bush statements ! answer faster than you can say God is on our side…
Well I’ll give it a try: The last question “West winning Terror… not”. Even being very politically correct… seems to me sums up pretty well what is going wrong in the so called “war on terror”. The simple fact that he says “The West” and not only the US also seems to point to the fact that this isn’t only about US pride… but up to a point an issue for “western civilization”.
I too feel that terror isn't being won... that Bin Laden "is receiving immeasurably more support around the globe than it was two years ago, let alone 15 years ago when he began serious campaigning". He does simplify saying: "Bin Laden's aim is to radicalize and mobilize." and the chilling
“He is closer to achieving his goals than the West is to deterring him.”
In another thread it was clearly put that this is in fact a propaganda war… an aspect the US has totally flopped in and worse helped ObL. Does anyone think the West on the contrary is “winning” Terror ? If it is… where is Jason Burke wrong ?