Uglysasquatch wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Uglysasquatch wrote:
2 is a matter of opinion.
A gunship firing on targets they clearly believe to be armed who followed all the rules and obtaining proper permission is an atrocity? That's a pretty broad definition you're using, isn't it?
If the word is being used that broadly, then it has no real weight, does it? Technically, every time a soldier kills another, it can be called an "atrocity" (the infliction of pain and suffering). One would assume that if the word is being applied with weight within the context of a larger military conflict that we're talking about exceptional acts which go far far beyond the normal range of deliberate and accidental acts which occur during war.
If not, then what is the point?
Quote:
gbaji wrote:
Having played the "someone else picks up the other side and then argues a slightly different point so I never get a straight answer" game many many times before, I'll beg to differ.
And I generally make a specific point to say that I'm *not* defending someone else's position when I do this specifically so that no one's confused as to what I'm saying or why (not that this always helps). What I run into is one person making a claim. I challenge that claim and someone else (or multiple people) respond, but not the person who made the original claim. As I counter those other responses, the argument shifts further and further away from the original claim and when I point out that their arguments don't defend said claim at all, I inevitably get a "but I didn't say that!" response.
If you want to make a separate point, by all means do so. But don't do it in a way that makes it appear like you're defending something someone else said when you're not.
