Quote:
Originally Posted by John Wilkes Booth
i agreed with your valid points, didn't really have anything to add to them. i didn't understand that one portion of your post (still don't, if i'm being honest). it's really not that big of a deal.
|
Fine. You had a problem understanding the following :
"The actions of these terrorists is creating more and more such associations and if it goes far enough, you can end up in a situation where islamism and the harmless things that relate to the religion remind us of fear, violence and terror."
You felt that this is a claim that islamism is harmless. To this, I write that "apples and oranges" is not the same as "apples
are oranges". You didn't seem to understand what I meant by that, so I'll elaborate. What I meant, specifically, is that the following words :
"islamism and the harmless things that relate to the religion"
should not be read as :
"islamism is a harmless thing that relates to the religion"
Which seems to be something along the lines of how you read it. Instead, "islamism" and "the harmless things that relate to the religion" should be read as written and intended, as two different things as indicated by the separation with the word "and". Thus, you can get the following meanings from the above :
"The actions of these terrorists is creating more and more such associations and if it goes far enough, you can end up in a situation where islamism reminds us of fear, violence and terror."
And also :
"The actions of these terrorists is creating more and more such associations and if it goes far enough, you can end up in a situation where the harmless things that relate to the religion remind us of fear, violence and terror."
Neither of those two meanings describe islamism as harmless. It isn't my belief and it's just not the words I put in the post.