I'm sure you think so. It's not semantics at all. Here is a chance for you to fight generalities and actually be accurate for once and you're too busy playing with the red pen up your ass.
Aren't you always arguing that a small minority of Muslims support terror, along with radical ideaologies? ...because if so, isn’t it a bit contradictory to then also argue that Iraq in it’s entirety, overwhelmingly supports this same movement?!?!?!?!? You're suggesting that the number of foriegn fighters, or the opinion polls about US policy are relevant proof of Iraq's own support for what you have credited as being their own insurgency.
So when you say stupid shit like this:
Quote:
|
Why is it necessary to state that a guy with a bomb strapped to him doesn't represent the interests of the market he's blowing up? Fucking hell, you ask for substance and then you complain about THAT?!
|
The question really is, why do you keep attributing the aggression to the victims of this same movement? Why are you arguing that a civil war of ideologically opposed groups can be imposed on "the Iraqis" and think it's a-ok as long as you're discussing anti-US sentiment? As if that's what the insurgency is strictly about. If it fits your own anti-Government agenda, then you think it's okay to run with it.
Quote:
|
You did not make a clear statement. Maybe you think brevity when stating opinions about things with which you have no direct experience (please correct me if you've personally polled the Iraqis or have a direct line to an omniscient observer) equates to substance, but I do not.
|
So I think this is you arguing that the insurgency in all varieties does in fact represent the interests of Iraqi people? Be clear. Yes, or no.