“Maybe we take Kharg Island, maybe we don’t. We have a lot of options,” he said.
Unless you imagine he's trying to transport an island, "take" is not being used in the way the headline suggests.
Conflict between Palestine and Israel escalates
- Thread starter dreng3
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Unless you imagine he's trying to transport an island, "take" is not being used in the way the headline suggests.
So, your contention is that since he said "take" in relation to seizing a piece of land at one point, therefore any other time he uses the word "take"-- even in relation to things other than land-- it must be understood only as temporarily holding it for the duration of the war.
And it is the fault of the media for reporting accurately the word he used, rather than editing it to adopt the same assumption you made.
Beggars belief, the stretches you'll make.
It's an invitation for you to actually the morality of the religion you claim to be a member of, if nothing else because that's the most obvious jumping-off point to consider that other moral viewpoints exist than the "might is right" mentality of the Trump administration and its widespread killing you endorse.
Sure. But Jesus's views on violence are not at all complicated. They are, I think, deeply unworldly: to forever "turn the other cheek" requires superhuman effort, and a willingness to accept domination that is perhaps beyond our ability to tolerate. Obviously, subsequent adherents started creating exceptions for why people could fight to make this new religion more practical and fit for societal dominance. But even with practicality, the leaning is surely that violence is to be avoided where possible.
One might contrast Pete Hegseth, tattooed with crusader symbols and invoking God's will in merciless slaughter, to Pope Benedict XVI explicitly condemning the crusades and slaughter in the name of God. Or the current Pope, recently saying "(Jesus) does not listen to the prayers of those who wage war, but rejects them, saying: 'Even though you make many prayers, I will not listen: your hands are full of blood'".
You and Tstorm have a Hegsethian morality of war, fine. But I cannot help but think that the Pope is much closer to the teachings of Jesus.
If you use Firefox, the web address box for some sites, especially media sites, has a symbol that looks like a piece of paper with writing on the right. Hover the cursor, it is called "reader view". If you click it, this strips away all sorts of adds and popups, but it also frequently allows you to bypass logins and even the odd paywall. I don't know whether it works for FT though.
Hegseth in particular seems obsessed with the crusades, even writing ''if you like western civilisation than thank a crusader''
I'm not sure why though. The west LOST the crusades. Consistently losing them all after the first one, and eventually being kicked out of the Holy Land for centuries. The only lasting success the crusades had was in forever crippling the eastern Roman Empire. And as I recall the Roman empire is as western an institution as can be.
The man is in dire need of a history book
You stopped quoting your own source the sentence before the one that calls your interpretation into question. You did that deliberately. You know what the situation is, and now you're just lying.
The "widespread killing" you're describing remains almost an order of magnitude less than the slaughter of protestors a couple months ago, even by Iran's numbers. This is in large part because the US is telling Iranians, including members of the IRGC, to stay home and away from military installations during the bombing. Even the navy ships that were sunk were done so after repeated warnings to abandon ship. Most, if not all, of the assassinations of leadership have been done by Israel, the US has targeted military infrastructure and vehicles. Widespread killing is decidedly not the goal, disarmament has been the target. The numbers from even just day one was that thousands of targets had been struck, thousands of munitions used, and the total death count caused by all sides of this conflict is as reported less than that number of targets hit.
Perhaps Jesus would even say to turn the other cheek and leave them their missile launchers, I am not Jesus, I don't know the absolute moral truth. What I do know is that you're not seeing what is actually going on to determine your condemnations, or you wouldn't reach the conclusion that it's "merciless slaughter".
No, you're resorting to tiresome accusations rather than facing up to how presumptuous and self-serving your interpretation was.
As stated, i had to rely on screenshots of the article. Now if you have full access to FT, feel free to paste the entirety of the content. Otherwise I'll assume the screenshot hasn't been arbitrarily edited.
It shows what I quoted was the full contiguous quote. And the following sentence of the article was exactly what I then said it was. What you want us to do is take his usage of the word "take" in a different quote, referring to a different thing (land rather than oil), and then strangely assume he must only ever be using "take" to mean "temporatily tactically hold, like land". An inane leap.
You place support for your party and president ahead of your faith, you just lack the courage to face it.
I'm just following the rhetoric of the US Secretary of State for
"Give them... overwhelming violence of action against those who deserve no mercy."
"America is winning decisively, devastatingly and without mercy"
That is not quite true.
The Baltic Crusade was basically successful. So was the Iberian Crusade. And the Albigensian Crusade if that one counts. And even among those against the Levante, not only the first was won, but the sixth as well. It even took back Jerusalem but tends to be forgotten because of the general lack of fighting.
While that's technically true we can safely assume Hegseth isn't drawing inspiration from crusaders vs the Baltics, but about them fighting brown people and losing.
It's from the Guardian article you posted, post #4127. Did you start this tangent with a source you can't read?
Agree. He does not strike me a someone with deeper knowledge about history or interest in stuff not American. His weird theology displays vast gaps of knowledge as well.
I obviously posted the Guardian article because the FT itself is paywalled-- a perfectly reasonable substitution given the barrier. The origin of the comments, as explained to you twice, is an interview with the FT. So for the only available first-hand account, if we need to examine specifics of language, we turn to the FT.
And in that original source, although paywalled, screenshots have shown the next sentence to be what I said it was. And his full contiguous quote was what i said it was.
Are you finished trying to muddy the waters? He said the thing. The headline accurately reported that he said the words he said. Take. The. Oil. You can speculate he meant it in a non-take way, based on him using the word "take" elsewhere to refer to the tactical seizure of land, if you like. That's your (stretched-to-hell) assumption. The Guardian is not at fault for not editing his words to prop up your assumptions.
Of course not. This is exactly the sort of sophistry he lives for to avoid addressing difficult points.
Ah, there it is, the usual sign that you know you don't really have a leg to stand on.
Yes, Silvanus and Seanchaidh are known for being in lockstep, and not getting into the much the same page long arguments over and over.