Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Abcdxxxx
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.
|
I apologize for the lack of a proper response here, but between the lines where you state that I am arguing things that I am NOT trying to argue and the lines where I just don't understand what the hell you're trying to say, I'm at a loss.
Seriously. Sorry.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by you
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by i
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. |
[/qoute]
I'm glad you're actually asking me to clarify a point that you question. Communication over the internet is a clumsy art at best.
The answer is "no" - as we're clear on the distinction between "the Iraqi people" and "some Iraqi people". I've said that several times now. I only objected to the implication that the insurgency either only represents the interests of Iraqis or else it is exclusively foreign interests. As you quite clearly stated after my objection that it is a hell of a lot more compllcated than that. Hence my last objection that this has spiralled into a pointless semantics argument.