Gryphon seems intent on raising the level of political argument by sticking to the arguments themselves, and avoiding personal attacks or hysterical accusations...

How dare he do that in the PWE forums?

you have ignored every substantial point in each of mine - I have only tried to address what I recognize as what is 'substantial' it should be clear that I haven't found more substance in your writing than anti-war puffery.

single word or phrase to deliberately misconstrue and willfully misinterpret through the filter of your prejudices. - I would say that you are describing your bias quite well.

The meaning of the word 'casualty' is not judgmental. - My original contention is that the Lancet and yourself want to have it both ways.

If you want to take up the issue of language legitimizing terrorists and their tactics, perhaps you should start with you own government who granted the al-Qaida the "honour" of the term "War", rather than the stigma of being criminal garbage.

September 20, 2001, Bush address to a joint session of Congress and the American people:

"Our war on terror begins with al-Qaida, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated."

How about I take the phrase that you objected to and expand it, just to make my point absolutely clear to anyone capable of understanding the English language.
-Any unarmed civilians that are shot by any nation’s checkpoint guards in a time of war are called casualties of war.
Unable to see beyond the limitations of your own overly sensitive bias - pertains to yourself, I am pointing out that place not time marks a war zone.

I did not object to your point that people shot by army regulars at checkpoints are casualties of war.

Once you lose the ability to objectively examine events, which is inevitable when you politicise the language, then you lose the ability to judge and assess the opinions, actions, and reactions of the people on the other end of your policies.

Your claim to objectivity is a false consciousness simply because your terms are misplaced alternately narrow and broad. I have tried to point this out in your casual use of casualty which either is so broad that it loses any distinction or feigns ignorance of its political implications.

X-Height – "So you will excuse me if I interpret your insisting on the neutrality of the word 'casualty' as a shade of insisting on a neutral position on the War"

Which war? Attacking Iraq is not actually a part of the War on Terror.

Since 2002, the United States military has authorized several new military awards and decorations to recognize those who serve in the War on terrorism.
Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal
Global War on Terrorism Service Medal
Afghanistan Campaign Medal
Iraq Campaign Medal

the true 'War on Terror' - Is against the directed hatred of an entire region not just Al-Qaida and its leader Osama bin Laden

By the way, do you know that there are almost 2,000 French troops in Afghanistan? This must be confusing for you, given that France is willing to commit more troops (as a proportion of their population) than Bush in the countries in which the terrorists that attacked the Pentagon and the World Trade Centre are based. If, as you and your president claim, "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists" (a ludicrously reductionist piece of rhetoric) which "side" are they on?

Confusing??? Just distressing, that like yourself, nations with otherwise clear recognition of the evil of terrorism take a limited view of who the perpetrators are.

X-Height – "All I can do is try persuade you to think of terrorism as more than a crimes committed by a few bad people."

Mass murder is a crime. I am quite shameless in saying this. What is a terrorist if not a criminal?

It should be obvious that term of criminal is insufficient and that the thunderheads of the cloud of evil are not the totality of the storm.

Fouad Ajami, USNews.com, from the 2005/04/04 issue:
"There is much that is wrong in the Arab world -- the willful refusal by modern-day Arabs to accept responsibility for their history, the schizophrenia of a world in the orbit of western culture but always accusing the West of all that is wrong. But these young people of Beirut, who had come together around the national cult of Rafiq Hariri, embody a desire for genuine change.
In a radically different era, America was "burned" in Beirut and quit the city under the gaze of Arabs who took the withdrawal as a sign of American abdication. There had been that searing October 1983 attack on the Marine barracks , which took the lives of 241 Americans. The U.S. Embassy was targeted by terrorists, and American missionaries and educators were murdered or taken as hostages for a cruel trade with Syria's and Iran's rulers. For good reasons, America gave up on Lebanon. But now the world is different, and there is in America a willingness to come to the aid of the Lebanese. It is Damascus and its tyranny on one side and the cedar revolution of the vast majority of Lebanon's people on the other. For once, there is an easy and good choice in an Arab land."

You have just identified their one and only "strategy" for this kind of debate.

Indeed grendel824

does this seem familiar as well:

That's a lot to overcome so it is up to us to convince them that this just isn't Bush's war but the West's and the region's best chance.

What gets me is that there are a lot of good, defensible objections to the U.S. going to war with Iraq - and the local yahoos aren't even bright enough to see them. They have go into lunatic rants about how the invasion itself was indefensible, which is a load of horseshit, and has been proven such by posters like ourselves. The fallout from that is evident, with all the cyberstalking and harassment. Sore losers, aren't they?

Boo f'n hoo. Says the guy who gleefully thought he'd found himself a Hail Mary victory when he wrote:

You must love doing the Masochism Tango, Ed. That was a factual argument you lost months ago. You might be rubbing something, but it's never been my nose.

Or should I take it from your complete lack of response that the following was one of those brutal posts you conveniently "refuse to read" when no retort is possible?

Word of advice, Ed. A superiority act combined with inferior thinking is a bad combination. Of course, some of us detect a bit of that formula coming from the Bush cabinet on the matter of Iraq, too. (On topic! Woo!) And those stakes trouble us a hell of a lot more than your gurgling "I've proved you all wrong" for the 600th time.

Sock #6?

Certain people should move to England, where they have a burgeoning white supremacist/National Socialist movement accounting for 5% of the population, organized as a party. I'd rather live in a democratic republic that allows free speech--one that is threatened but not destroyed by ubermensch-worshipping ideologues and phony christian imbeciles.

Nope - no socks whatsoever. Same guy, similar name - some egotistical twit keeps banning account after account because I had the nerve to "admonish him" doing a shitty job stopping you losers from breaking laws. This can literally go on forever, so I'm here to stay - I'm certainly not hiding behind any socks.