Quote:
Originally posted by Timber Loftis:
I think in the post-9/11 world some subjects are touchy. As an example (that I'm not ascribing to you), if your support for Iraq or opposition to the US goes so far as calling the US terrorist, you have simply gone to far. It's like calling a modern-day German a Nazi - the worst of insults. And, trust me, in my country we toss around the word "Nazi" in a lot of slang, but say it once to a German and you'll learn it's got the F-word status over there.
Just some thoughts.
|
So, if I described the US government as funding terrorism or in fact employing terrorist tactics then you would think I had "gone to far"? Is it not the case that it is just an opinion based on facts - an opinion you disagree with I'll grant you. Why is it exactly that it is quite alright to describe one set of people as terrorists with limited evidence to back it up, but it is just "going to far" to do the same for another group.
No one is outright calling you a terrorist Timber, and frankly I haven't read a post where Skunk has described the US govt as terrorist in its actions either. But I don't quite get your argument that it is somehow a dirty word and therefore the US govt should be immune to it. This is an opinion like any other and I had always understood IW to be in full support of a freedom of speech where it does not outright insult specific people on the board.
Skunk - don't go mate... there are lots of nice people here, honest! I know how you feel, a lot of the time this gets me down as well but stick it out - its not that bad really. I hope you reconsider...
