Smasharoo wrote:
Is the tautology that you are arguing "sometimes wars end when someone wins"? I'm not really clear on it.
Perhaps if you had not removed the second half of the sentence, you'd have realized that I wasn't saying that at all. I was saying that when a war is lost because a side's military is defeated, it didn't happen because "all they understand is violence". It was in direct response to your own post where you portrayed those who use violence against terrorists as justifying it because "all they understand is violence". I was simply countering that this is absurd because lots of violence is inflicted on others without that justification being required.
But good job totally missing the point. Again, next time, maybe *don't* strip off half of my sentence? Just a thought.
Quote:
I ask again for the simple statement of what it is you think you are arguing that other people disagree with.
Um... That categorizing anyone who fights terrorism with violence does so because they think that "all they understand is violence". I thought you, of all people, with your ability to think on such a high level, would be able to manage simple reading comprehension.
Quote:
I'm not sure why that is so difficult for you to provide.
It isn't. You just have some kind of mental block that prevents you from actually reading the whole sentence. I just quoted it for you and pointed it out, and you still failed to read it properly. You still seem to think I was talking about how wars end. That's just bizarre.