A simple "no, I don't understand" would have sufficed. Let me put this as simply as I can: Your statement offended me. When I informed you that your statement was offensive, you countered by stating you weren't being offensive. I then affirmed that I was offended and further gave you examples of how not just I, but anybody would find your statement offensive. You're now arguing that I'm offended. CORRECT. I didn't post that link to demonstrate that I know more than you, I posted it to demonstrate that I can and have had extremely in-depth, extremely nuanced discussions about this very subject. But I won't have it with YOU unless you make an effort not to offend me. You can be as militant as you want. What you're supposed to take from our discussion, however, is that I'm under no obligation to have a discussion with someone who goes out of their way to offend me. You didn't start our discussion with "It sounds like you're saying X" or "Are you saying X." You started it with sarcasm and straw men. That you don't start discussions here with antagonism. I don't know where you came from (that's a lie). I'll reckon things are different there. Around here? We start civil discussions with civility. And if you'd like to take a step back, apologize and rephrase your questions in a form largely devoid of scorn and sarcasm, we can have that civil discussion.So what am I supposed to take from that?
I wasn't being sarcastic, I genuinely wanted to know if you didn't believe there was a difference. If you felt offended, which your reply doesn't actually say, rather just an accusation I was putting words in your mouth, I apologise, that wasn't the intent, but I was expecting you'd clear up your position when asked. Seeing confrontation where there wasn't one was on you, not me. Your initial reaction was to simply fly off the handle even after I attempted to clear up the reasoning behind my question twice, yet you still dismiss it as sarcasm or a fabricated reading of your intent. If you write something that someone interprets in a way you didn't intend surely you explain what you did intend not get angry at the interpretation ...that's what I did, look above. I gave you a break down of my thought process so I'm still shocked you're interpreting it as a confrontation of nothing. You yourself in the link you posted say the situation in Israel/Palestine is one where you have to form your own opinion. You clearly have one on the people of Palestine as do I. Mine is that they have valid concerns and grievances. This is no comment on their methodology or actions. I don't believe firing rockets or blowing up buses is a worthwhile endeavour, but I don't believe they're bored or disaffected kids looking for fraternal bonding or purpose to an otherwise hopeless life. So with that context when I see a story about two Americans seeking out Jihad after watching a few DVDs and listening to some indoctrination at their local Mosque I would only disagree that their path and the methods used to turn them would look anything like it would in Palestine. I can't see how the methods would be the same. The things I have read of Hamas are their masked legitimate programs, schools, healthcare, youth programs where they then feed of the very real anger felt by those on the ground and turn that to their advantage. They're there in the shit, as it were, with their recruits and actually offer them something at first. This can't be compared to a couple of disaffected kids from America. What anger is being used and redirected? For them they went seeking brotherhood and the people they found say "hey, we're your brothers, and this bully is picking on us, lets go fight" and they foster a sense of purpose for probably the first time in their lives. My point is if the motivations of the recruit are vastly different there's simply no way the recruitment methods can be anything alike.