Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Eric5273
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.
|
If I took it out of context, why did you "clarify" things later by saying this:
"Law enforcement in this country is very corrupt." ?
My point is, you say things without seeming to conceive that they could be offensive.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Eric5273
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.
|
I never referred to you as, or compared you to, Hitler. I just find it ironic that you got offended by the comment but can't conceive that yours could incite similar feelings in others.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Eric5273
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.
|
What I said was, "Do you understand that even attempting to relate retired military to terrorists is offensive to people in the military?"
I know what you were trying to do. I also know that in so doing, as I have said, you don't seem to realize that your poor choice in comparisons could possibly anger others - and not just because they don't agree.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Eric5273
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.
|
I really don't think you know what you're talking about when it comes to military matters. I'm not saying you have to have been in the military to talk about/criticize the military, I'm saying that you are drawing the wrong conclusions due to your lack of experience. Would you agree that the same facts can lead different people to different conclusions? That's what I'm talking about.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Eric5273
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?
|
Perhaps we're getting somewhere. As you identified, "brainwashed" is offensive. Period. I'm not talking about the poll - just your interpretation of it. Since you clearly don't know, "brainwashed" is a very old insult cast at the military. Having a master's degree myself, and knowing scores of PhD's currently on active duty, I find that to be highly offensive. I'm not saying that it's not possible to be brainwashed by having education - I'm just saying that it lessens the possibility.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Eric5273
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.
|
Compare away. As I said, it's something we do in the military on a regular basis. Also something I'm quite familiar with seeing as how I have a BA in history. Comparisons are the norm for me. That's not the problem. When you compare the military to a known terrorist organization - that's insulting. Your examples are apples & Buicks. It has nothing to do with whether or not Hezbollah "has a country." The point is, it's a terrorist organization. Period. Saying that I don't wish to be compared to them is a personal attack that is designed to avoid the point. There is no comparison. I don't quite understand why you don't get that. Also, I couldn't care any less about what a terrorist organization thinks of me or of the military. Their opinion simply doesn't matter - until they stop being terrorists, that is. This isn't about me trying to dehumanize a group that I feel is my enemy, it's like you've previously said. I judge them by their actions, not their words. To paraphrase Mr. Gump, "terrorist is as terrorist does."
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Eric5273
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.
|
As I said, the first and foremost thing I believe in is freedom of speech. I'm not even close to asking you to shut up. I'm asking you to, as rayxi put it, "review your responses before posting." Think outside yourself prior to hitting "submit reply." I do that - and 99% of the time, if I'm offensive, it's because I intended to be. That 1% of the time that I didn't realize it, I'll either apologize, or edit the post to remove the offense.
I guess the best thing for me to do is not post here. I seem to be the troublemaker, so I'll be mature and remove myself from the situation.