3 ms·
> You are misstating their position I'd say you are doing it to both his an mine. > Big emphasis on IF I don't see any conditional in that post AT ALL. The p
by acqq 3y ago
> You are misstating their position
I'd say you are doing it to both his an mine.
> Big emphasis on IF
I don't see any conditional in that post AT ALL. The paragraph starts with the explicit invitation and also states the (false and, let's be clear, if targeted at most other ethnicities/nations, immediately recognized as profoundly racist) "reason": "I just hope NATO ... actually go all the way and occupies the country. That's the only way to neuter Serbia for a generation of two ..."
Put as a thought example Native Americans in these sentences and consider how it was "better" for them to be eliminated, and how a text of anonymous self-claimed "Native American" saying that sentence targeted at their own people would appear today.
- cycrutchfield 3y agoNATO would only intervene if Serbia invades. I think that was clear in the original post. I suggest you work on your reading comprehension skills.
- acqq 3y agoI however think you can't cite any statement in that post directly containing that assumption, if it was "clear" to you it says more about your assumptions than about the actual content discussed.
- cycrutchfield 3y agoThe person who wrote the original post replied above saying that my interpretation of his post was correct. What other “proofs” do you need?
- acqq 3y agoI'm simply not interested in person's later claims, the post does not contain any conditionals. That is exactly what I argue, let me repeat if it wasn't clear enough: if somebody "sees" them where they aren't it's due to their assumptions existing independently of what is actually written in the post.
- cycrutchfield 3y ago[flagged]