Merry Nondenominational Cooking Event.

[Jamie Lawrence]

On Tue, 23 Dec 2003, James A. Donald wrote:

> On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 11:18:51 -0500, message ID
> 20031221161851.GE32589 at clueinc.net You said:
> : :	"I do care that the US fails to adhere to
> : :	international law."
>  implying that US treatment of Saddam violated international
>  law.
> 
> You also said;
> : :	"knocking over a crippled tyrant."
> implying oh dear, that terrible big bully USA is kicking a poor
> little cripple in his poor little wheelchair, think of the poor
> little Saddam falling out of his wheelchair.
> 
> These images are not appropriate to someone who claims to
> believe what you just claimed to believe, and you were not
> saying what you claimed you were saying.
> 
> As the thread title says, I am anti war, you support Saddam.

James, you are simply full of shit. I don't believe you're incapable of
seeing the difference between calling Saddam a crippled tyrant and
"support[ing] Saddam". I do believe you're willfully attempting to twist
other people's words, and not even doing a good job of it. "A equals A" 
reasoning is for high school. If you look at the words I typed, instead
of your fantasy-land model of reality, you might notice that you're
making a fool of yourself.
 
> I did not suggest killing all the ragheads, and in other forums
> I have regularly argued against claims about Islam or arabs
> that would rationalize and justify such an action.

I have no idea what you've said in other forums. I merely pointed
out what you have said here.

> There is ample evidence that the 'anti war' crowd is largely
> pro Saddam, evidence in this mailing list, considerably
> stronger evidence in the newsgroups, evidence in the streets,
> and in the editorials of the BBC and the telegraph, and
> evidence in your own utterances.  Let us discuss that.

There is ample evidence that you fail to argue about what people have 
_actually said_, impute motive and behaviour where there is none, 
and point to a grand Ellsworth Toohey-ish conspiracy that needs to be 
fought, improbably enough, by a nation-state. 

> Dean at least has a legitimate excuse to be unhappy about the
> capture of Saddam, since it queers his chances in the election,
> but there are an awful lot of other people distressed about the
> capture and coming execution of Saddam.  What is your excuse? 

As I said, you're being boring. I suppose someone had to step up to the
task of being the resident Choate.

I have some cooking to do. Happy holidays, all!

-j


-- 
Jamie Lawrence                                        jal at jal.org
A priest, a bear, and a programmer walked into a bar. And the 
bartender said, "What is this, a joke?"