You have a determined inability to see both sides of the coin, which makes it difficult to discuss unemotionally what the best route out of this chaos is.
Just because I am willing to look at both sides does not make me in support of bin Laden, for example.
And I am quite justified in comparing "devout" leaders on both sides of the battle. Bush, supposedly a devout Christian, saw perfectly fit to launch a war which he knew would kill many, many, innocents.
A nuclear bomb is just a big bomb that kills more people in one go. Once you get past the fear of the topic, then you might be able to see that there are directly parallel concepts in Bush invading a country (and in the eyes of the devout opponents - attacking their very core) vs a terrorist causing a nuke going off somewhere (followed by the US retaliation, of course)
In both cases incalculable cost, damage, and casualties are incurred.
In both cases men of this world, who profess piety, will have justified their actions in the face of God.
You keep threatening to stop discussing because you accuse me of going on tangents or trivializing things or insulting the main protagonist on one side -- fine, then stop discussing it.
But if you can see that I'm being deadly serious, not trying to "score" points for one side or the other, then I will be pleased to carry this on. Somehow you must find a way to stop taking this personally or discussion is pointless. |
