Rottweiler said:
What's even more awesome is you took one example, have completely spun it into universal statements I *didn't* make, and now I'm a perfect example of something?
This is what I actually said:
"I always find it so interesting how people say 'rar they killed civilians' but when you say 'and how do you feel about the enemy, who actively hides amongst civilians and uses their deaths for propaganda purposes?' you get a whole lot of nothing.
"Well, uh...they...uh...CIVILIAN DEATHS! Most of them reported by people who have a massive bias against the military and who need every bit of propaganda they can get! But we believe them because it fits our preconceived notions!"
I never saw IGNORANT, could you show me where I put that in there? Or how did you put it:
"So you think the majority of civilian deaths is made up by opposing forces as a means of propaganda ?"
Did I say that in there? I completely missed that.
Now, why don't you use things I *actually* said and we can have a rational discourse.
Because *you* gave the perfect example of someone taking things to an extreme which fits your personal agenda, and ignoring that actual words and sense behind them that were actually posted.
*You*, sir, are the awesome one.
P.S. I will stand up for thinking the UN is a useless organization. Because that's what I think.