>>Bill said: "I can say with certainty that killing terrorists lessens their ability to attack."..."How can you say it doesn't?"
Your rejoinder was that "...terrorists in other places, including Osama bin Laden and his right-hand man Zawahiri, are free to continue to plot against us and to recruit and train new terrorists."
I added: Apparently you think those particular terrorists are important to your argument. I guess if they are captured are killed they won't be "free to continue to plot against us and to recruit and train new terrorists."
You now continue: "Your interpretation of what I originally said is bizarre and illogical."
Solon -
First off, by eliminating the context of my original comments, and ignoring the first part of the dialogue, you missed the original meaning of what I said. Actually, the confusion probably started with Bill's off-point rejoinder to one of my posts, wherein I said that fighting terrorists in Iraq does nothing to stop the terrorists in the rest of the world from recruiting new terrorists and planning to harm us.
His response was "I can say with certainty that killing terrorists lessens their ability to attack." It's an obvious truth, but it doesn't stand up as an argument against what I said.
While our soldiers fight and die, trying to root out an enemy hiding among the civilian population of Iraq, all over the world other terrorists are free to do whatever they want.
I would say that:
1) bin Laden and Zawahiri, who masterminded the 9/11 attacks are important leaders of what is probably the most dangerous terrorist organization in the world,
2) Our failure to capture them after all this time is a source of great pride and amusement for radical islamic fundamentalists the world over,
3) Fighting in Iraq does nothing to slow down the many terrorists and terrorist groups in the rest of the world, including, as I said, "Osama bin Laden and his right-hand man Zawahiri", who remain "free continue to plot against us and to recruit and train new terrorists."
The above point number 3 was made quite plain in the post to which Bill replied that killing terrorists lessens their ability to attack, which again is a concept I never even implied disagreeing with.
Thus, we are spending tremendous efforts and asking great sacrifices of our troops while accomplishing very little in the war on terrorism.
I must admit that I misread this statement from you: Apparently you think those particular terrorists are important to your argument. I guess if they are captured are killed they won't be "free to continue to plot against us and to recruit and train new terrorists." Hmmm.
I thought you meant to say that I believed that if bin Laden and Zawahiri were captured or killed they WOULD still be free to plot against us, etc. Now I see that you said "WON'T".
But if you actually meant to say that I thought they WON'T be free to plot against us if captured or killed, then I don't understand why you would disagree with me.
- Allen |
