Kaiserschmarrn wrote:I think they call your way of arguing "motte and bailey". If you cannot show that it's easy to get western people to support genocide (obviously the more outrageous of your two claims) and attacks on civilians, you should man up and retract.
Since you ignored most of my other examples, I will wait for you to address them before I decide to retract anything.
This would be relevant - albeit also wrong - if there had been a Muslim ban. There wasn't.
No one argued that there was a Muslim ban.
You asked for a pn example of widespread Islamophobia. The support for the idea of the ban is evidence of widespread Islamophobia.
As long as we are clear that the west is not waging a war against Muslims.
Again, we are waging war against Muslims.
We are not doing it because
they are Muslim, but we are still waging war on Muslims.
We are not doing it to all Muslims, but we are still waging war on Muslims.
There's no deliberate targeting of civilians by the US, much less majority support for it in western countries.
I provided examples. If you wish to ignore examples and then repeat your argument that has been disproved by the examples, feel free.
Very typical for you to call the original topic of conversation, into which you injected yourself, irrelevant.
It is irrelevant to me.
I'd suggest you get a room with @Pants-of-dog to complain that the western public doesn't care enough, since that seems to be what both of you actually mean. Just leave me out of your hyperbolic claims that westerners cheer on genocide and massacres of civilians.
US officials have been known to be involved in massacres.
Elliott Abrams, for example, was a high ranking official in the State Department when Reagan was supporting right wing dictatorships and death squads in Central America.
It is known that he was aware of these groups killing civilians en masse and not only continued to supply weapons and other supoort to them.
He still works for the US government.
How is that not open acceptance and support of massacres?