Quote:
|
Originally Posted by rebound
Here’s a example of one of your past comments, that I’m sure you didn’t intend to offend with:
“As for some cops being corrupt, most entire police precincts (not individual cops), are corrupt to some extent. Most accept money from organized crime, drug distributors, etc, and that money is divided up among the cops at the precinct.”
|
You are taking this out of context. I was talking specifically about the NYPD and LAPD, and this is not a loose allegation with no factual basis. As I'm sure you know, both police departments have reputations for being extremely corrupt.
I did not mean to imply that all cops are corrupt. If it was taken this way, then I apologize. What I meant to imply is that corruption in these two police departments is organizational, not individual. And even within those 2 departments, I do not blame individual cops -- they are just doing their jobs. The problem is much higher up.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by rebound
Do you understand that even attempting to relate retired military to terrorists is offensive to people in the military?
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by rebound
You claim to have been offended by a supposed comparison between you and Hitler. That’s fine, I’m not saying you were lying. My point is, why can’t you see how similar “comparisons” could offend others?
|
What offended me was not any comparison. What offended me was the suggestion that I was a fan of a book that advocated genocide of my own religion.
If you want to compare me to Hitler, go ahead. Although I'm not sure what comparison you could make. But do not imply that I am a fan of genocide.
When you are debating politics, the best way to make a point is to make a comparison to an extreme. When you make a comparison to something moderate, the point gets lost.
For example, when someone compares Bush to Hitler, 99% of the time they are not implying that Bush is as bad as Hitler in all ways. Usually they are pointing to a specific policy and the best way to prove the point that such a policy is extremist in nature (or simply wrong) is to show that a similar policy was carried out by an extremist such as Hitler. The biggest comparison here I have seen is Bush's "Patriot Act" compared to Hitler's "Enabling Act", and if you read both laws they can indeed be compared and are very simliar. Making that comparison does not imply that Bush is in favor of genocide as Hitler was. If you are making that assumption, then you are reading into it too much.
In another forum, when people were talking about the wall Israel was building around the West Bank, I posted a picture of another famous wall that was built to divide two areas (I think you can guess which one), and of course some people were outraged. But making that comparison caused many in the discussion to realize how extreme of an idea building the wall is.
In the comparison you were referring to, I did not compare an American officer to Hezbollah. Go back and read my post again. We were discussing "conflict of interest" in our government, so the best way for me to make my point was to use an extreme example as an analogy. As I indicated, I am outraged by the conflict of interest that exists in the Defense Policy Board. Others indicated they were not outraged by that conflict of interest. The best way for me to explain how I feel about that is to give an analogy that others WOULD be outraged by. I think the example of Hezbollah running the FBI's anti-terrorism unit was a good analogy.
I'm sorry if that somehow offended you, but I was not comparing Hezbollah directly to the US Military. I was comparing the conflict of interest that exists to another hypothetical conflict of interest -- a rather extreme one.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by rebound
I never say you’re insulting for suggesting the military is wrong – sometimes the military is.
|
The difference here is that I have not suggested they are wrong in the same way you have. When you have suggested that they are wrong, it is in an accidental way or in having "bad judgement" or "poor foresight".
My opinion is that they are wrong in the same way Iraq's military was wrong when they invaded Kuwait. I don't think there is anything accidental about it. I think it was 100% intentional -- and to that you do seem to be insulted.
You have to realize I am not criticizing the soldiers, or even the officers. I am criticizing those in charge making the decision at the highest level.
I actually support the soldiers more than you think. In various discussions (I cannot remember if on this board or other boards) I have indicated that in most cases I do not think the soldiers on trial for some of the abuses should be held responsible as I think they are being used as scapegoats for poor policy. I also have been a big opponent of all the cuts in vetran benefits.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by rebound
You have made repeated insults toward the military. Remember this one:
“The soldiers are obviously brainwashed to the point that they don't know what is going on. Does that poll not indicate that?
So if they know so little about their mission, then how can you trust their analysis of it?”
|
Was it insulting that I posted the poll, or insulting that I said they were "brainwashed"??
Perhaps the word "brainwashed" was a bit harsh, and I aplogize for that. Would you have prefered "indoctrinated"??
The poll showed that 85% of US soldiers in Iraq think the main reason for the Iraq war was to avenge Saddam's role in the 9/11 attacks.
When 85% of the soldiers in Iraq believe something that is not true, I have to assume this is because they were told that by their superiors. Of course I am open to other theories about this if you care to share any.
What is your conclusion from this poll?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by rebound
Perhaps this is where we disagree. I do not, and don’t foresee ever, viewing Hezbollah as a military organization. They are terrorists. If you were to compare the American military to the French military (or any other actual military), that wouldn’t be the least bit insulting. Within the military, we do that all the time. It's called training, and it's important to us.
|
When there is war, you compare both sides. Call them whatever you want, it's just a name. Hezbollah are no different than the Contras in Nicaragua, Irgun in Palestine, the French resistance during WWII, the current Iraqi resistance, the Cubans who invaded during the Bay of Pigs, or even George Washington's army during the Revolutionary war. These are all examples of military organizations without a country. If you want to call them "terrorists", then you can. But just because you agree with the goals of some and not with others does not make them different.
So yes, this is where we disagree. When there is a war, I will compare both sides. I know you do not wish to be compared to the other side as your opinion of them is that they are "terrorists" and they are terrible people. I'm also pretty sure that they think the same of the American military. For me, I try to stay impartial in these discussions and be critical of both sides, and I will compare.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by rebound
I’m more than happy to discuss any topic in a civil (and hopefully a light/amusing) manner. When the line is crossed however, don’t expect me to turn the other cheek every time. I try to be mature about these things, but as a human being, I have human failings.
|
I'll do my best to keep it that way too from now on. Perhaps the best thing I can do is simply state my opinion and not try to debate the point. I'll try to do that from now on.
