Quote:
Undertoad
I don't know who is responsible. But I do know one thing: you are one paranoid dude.
|
Who knows, maybe I am. I guess you are joking about the paranoia, since I wouldn't assume you'd be making fun of (or insinuating) somebody
else's genuine mental malady.
Nonetheless, your post was a continuation of the things discussed in a previous thread, where we clashed over Europe's role in the 'war on terrorism', where you specifically mentioned France et al as bombing/terrorism targets. The tone of your posting seemed to suggest that it was to some extent disproving that Europe would not be the target of terrorism unless it was allied with the US. Am I wrong in this assumption?
Since you borught up US foreign policy, and how it influences the world stage (including terrorism in Europe), I presented a conflicting view, in which current US foreign policy is not necessarily on a course in which all islamic fundamentalism and thus-resulting violence will be stopped. (if we can assume that related forces were behind the Semtex on the French jet)
Nobody else seemed to be answering to the post in a few hours, possibly because they're too busy with other things on a weekend; I waited for a while to see if a conversation was starting, and added my two <a href="http://www.colonialacres.com/euro.shtml">cents</a>
You didn't address my points, but I freely admit that it's easy to consider them tangential to your intended meaning. I see them as interconnected, but not everyone may see it the same way. I attempted to forestall any flames by asking you not to invoke the 'German' threat (again), since that didn't aid debate in the past. If you consider that paranoid, I am sorry (Even if your answer sounded a lot like an ad hominem attack, but I'm happy to ignore that)
X.
PS: The protests are <a href="http://www.salon.com/news/wire/2002/09/28/brits/index.html">underway</a> (the headline is incorrect, SY said
more than 150k, the STWC claimed around 400k, the truth is probably somewhere in-between).