of 700+ posts here, and 10278 posts on SI, u are the first to say my language can not be understood. so, my question is : who is linguistically challenged?
The record of the preceding 30 or so posts speaks for itself. Anyone who can follow your train of thought in response to my posts on al Qaeda cash flows and the proper usage of the term "Western World" is either married to you, or is amazing, in my opinion. I generally don't have to write "What is your point?" as often in various discussions with other SI posters. If I don't know what your point is, trust me, others don't as well. They may not bring it up, but that's the way it is.
But perhaps it is a sensitive issue for you, so lets drop it.
If you want to clarify the points that you were trying make before our discussion degenerated into discussing our discussion, go ahead. My points were:
- unclewest probably has no idea whether al Qaeda's funding today is superior to what it was in the past, and if he can back up that claim please do do.
- the oft used comparison of the western world with the Islamic world is misleading. A better comparison of the "West (Europe and the Americas)" is with the "East (Asia)". And a better comparison of the Islamic world is with the Christian, Hindu and Bhuddist worlds.
- If when people say the West they really mean secular apitalist, civil democratic countries (which include Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Eastern Europe, Japan, South Korea and Brazil) they should call it what it is - the modern developed democratic world, not the "West" since many countries which fit that profile are not in the West (which is generally viewed as West of Russia).
Within those three topics, your replies were incomprehensible to me, so if you have any, go ahead, try again!
And don't tell me to go look up some post of yours on the Council of Guardians, or I'm going to have to reiterate that your point is escaping me :-) |
