> The specific case I was discussing, and I really hope I'm not so vague in my dotage that this wasn't crystal clear, was the 2 May 2011 attack on Osama bin Laden's compound resulting in his death.
Nope, certainly not crystal clear: You were replying to a post that mentioned, among other things, the Guantanamo internment camp, and airily said "this" case. I saw no specification there of which case, exactly, that was supposed to be.
Yes, the USA may be vast and contain multitudes, but even you talk about "the US": In the end there is only one of it, and when the USA as a nation-state does stuff then it's the USA, singular, as a nation-state that gets discussed and criticized. Just like here. I hope I'll never get so fuzzy in my dotage that I'll let sich disingenuous attempts at obfuscation slip by.
Hm... Pseudo-helpful hint/ reminder; feels like about 50/50 past and current posters. I'd already concluded neither extreme of Box or Ash, for rather obvious linguistic reasons. Been considering alumni like RM, DRL, KMS et al, but this feels more like currents such as RC, SK, or SA. Or perhaps AG; I notice that his recipe -- besides the formal declaration being severely watered down -- was pretty much what the US (singular, as a nation-state) went with.
I've told you specifically what I was referring to, and you are continuing to dispute what I was telling you. The same vagueness applies to imchillyb's comment, yet you seem to find no fault with that.
Why do you think that "told you specifically what I was referring to" defines the discussion? Who died and bequeathed it to you alone? imchillyb explicitly mentioned stuff -- yeah, lots of stuff, including among other things false internments at Guantanamo -- so pointing out that your claimed "debunking" does not at all debunk those isn't "vague" at all. Any "vagueness" in their comment is only in your head.
Of the very few topics I consider myself an ultimate authority on, my own mental state and intent is a prime instance.
I may not have communicated effectively. And in discussion with you it seems I'll never be able to.
But I know what I intended to communicate, and have stated what that is, repeatedly.
You seem bent on steering the conversation to what you wanted to hear me say. Which seems to be a premise founded on precisely the weak foundation you criticise me for.
Nope, certainly not crystal clear: You were replying to a post that mentioned, among other things, the Guantanamo internment camp, and airily said "this" case. I saw no specification there of which case, exactly, that was supposed to be.
Yes, the USA may be vast and contain multitudes, but even you talk about "the US": In the end there is only one of it, and when the USA as a nation-state does stuff then it's the USA, singular, as a nation-state that gets discussed and criticized. Just like here. I hope I'll never get so fuzzy in my dotage that I'll let sich disingenuous attempts at obfuscation slip by.
Hm... Pseudo-helpful hint/ reminder; feels like about 50/50 past and current posters. I'd already concluded neither extreme of Box or Ash, for rather obvious linguistic reasons. Been considering alumni like RM, DRL, KMS et al, but this feels more like currents such as RC, SK, or SA. Or perhaps AG; I notice that his recipe -- besides the formal declaration being severely watered down -- was pretty much what the US (singular, as a nation-state) went with.
I don't have your email; you have mine.