Ashley, it is too bad you were impressed with "the sophist". He was using devious argumentation.
"the sophist" invented the devious notion of a "legitimate motive" when there is no such thing. A motive is nether legitimate nor illegitimate, it simply the impulse that acts as an incitement to action. He is once again engaged in the underhanded tactic of trying to paint me as someone who approves of the horrible 9/11 attacks. The guy is a sleaze.
His whole post was disingenuous and it should have been clear that it didn't merit a line by line response. I already pointed out he was a very dishonest person.
My posts and links made my position clear.
Come one, how can anyone read what I wrote, "In 1831, terrorists killed Americans because of slavery. Would ending slavery have been "giving in to terrorism"?
and "You guys need to understand what motives are and what that means." and "You guys are like the people in the 1800's who refused to admit that a US policy was wrong." and not get what I am saying?
The analogy should make it clear that the wrongs of slavery were not just the opinion of Nat Turner but were a grievance shared by millions of others.
Sophist is devious little creep ignoring what I have said and trying to position the grievances shared by millions as the whims of a few terrorists. These grievances are shared by millions and that makes it all the more dangerous. Sophist is deviously blurring the concept of motive and grievance. What honest and reasonable person could seriously think that I would be arguing "kill them all'? Come on Ashley. Could I possibly be arguing that we should continue wrong polices if I describe them as such?