This has nothing to do with their justification and everything to do with your suggestion that attacking what you believe to be a credible threat in self defense isn’t a thing.
I didn’t say it wasn’t a thing. I’m saying that anything involving “defensive” and a Middle Eastern country from the US military is a damned lie right now.
Therefore, according to you, since you have now confirmed that the words you write are exactly what you mean, no military group in the Middle East ever fires at the U.S. military first.
Read those words, all of them, with equal weight. Maybe you just need some contextual editing and a rephrase to grasp this.
Right now, statements from the US military involving both the words “defensive strike” and any Middle Eastern country are extremely dubious and should not be trusted.
You have now shown that your previous statement was false:
Because this:
Right now, statements from the US military involving both the words “defensive strike” and any Middle Eastern country are extremely dubious and should not be trusted.
And this:
I didn’t say it wasn’t a thing. I’m saying that anything involving “defensive” and a Middle Eastern country from the US military is a damned lie right now.
Do not mean exactly the same thing. There is a wide, wide gulf between “damned lie” and “extremely dubious.”
I really don’t think anything more needs to be done to demonstrate that you are being wildly inconsistent and quite dishonest, so I think I’ll move on.
I’m not going to play this game of semantics. You’re right, they aren’t exactly the same. Because I rephrased it for clarification I thought was missing. They mean the same thing. If you want to argue that removing heated language in the name of understanding fundamentally altered what I have to say, then that’s your deal. I want productive conversations, not word lawyering. I get enough of that from fighting work with my union.
Way to derail the conversation about Syria with a country way that has little to do with it. (yes even if OP said middle east)
Even with Yemen, the United States started. The yemeni rebels fought against an oppressive government, and the United States had to intervene in the interest of Saudi for many years before the yemenis ever responded. So your example does not disprove the claim.
This has nothing to do with their justification and everything to do with your suggestion that attacking what you believe to be a credible threat in self defense isn’t a thing.
I didn’t say it wasn’t a thing. I’m saying that anything involving “defensive” and a Middle Eastern country from the US military is a damned lie right now.
Are you actually making the bizarre claim that no military group in the Middle East ever fires at the U.S. military first?
Because I think that’s pretty much the entire tactic when it comes to the Houthis.
Are you intentionally misconstruing what I say? Because that is also not what I’m saying. The words I write are exactly what I mean.
This is what you wrote:
Therefore, according to you, since you have now confirmed that the words you write are exactly what you mean, no military group in the Middle East ever fires at the U.S. military first.
Which is objectively false.
Read those words, all of them, with equal weight. Maybe you just need some contextual editing and a rephrase to grasp this.
Right now, statements from the US military involving both the words “defensive strike” and any Middle Eastern country are extremely dubious and should not be trusted.
You have now shown that your previous statement was false:
Because this:
And this:
Do not mean exactly the same thing. There is a wide, wide gulf between “damned lie” and “extremely dubious.”
I really don’t think anything more needs to be done to demonstrate that you are being wildly inconsistent and quite dishonest, so I think I’ll move on.
I’m not going to play this game of semantics. You’re right, they aren’t exactly the same. Because I rephrased it for clarification I thought was missing. They mean the same thing. If you want to argue that removing heated language in the name of understanding fundamentally altered what I have to say, then that’s your deal. I want productive conversations, not word lawyering. I get enough of that from fighting work with my union.
Sorry… you’re saying it’s never self-defense if you were the initial aggressor years ago?
What crimes am I justifying? Please quote me. Otherwise I’m just going to report you for incivility and trolling.
Sorry I’m no longer interested in such a derailed conversation.
Because you lied and I did no such thing. Good to know I can report and move on.