quote:
The US and Israel are the only two countries that are truly fighting terrorism and its a battle that neither one of us will ever win, but we must keep up the fight or all is lost.
Uhm... I tried parsing that in different ways, but I can only glean one possible line of (for lack of a better term) reasoning. Let me see if I've gotten your meaning correctly:
1. The US and Israel are the only two countries that are truly fighting terrorism.
2. It (the fight against terrorism) is a battle that neither one of us (the US and/or Israel) will ever win.
3. We must keep up the fight or all is lost.Point one is debatable, but for the purpose of leaving unnecessary distractions out of the way for the moment, let's assume that is correct. Israel and the US are the only two good guys. Facing such overwhelming odds, apparently, your statement in point two seems to indicate the the terrorists are going to overcome our two valiant but overmatched nations. We are going to LOSE the war on terrorism. Point three? We must keep fighting or all is lost.
Wait, didn't you already
say we're going to lose? Isn't saying that "it's a battle neither one of us will ever win" pretty much mean the same thing as "all is lost"?
So, in this line of reasoning, you're saying that even though we're most assuredly going to lose, we have to fight to keep from losing?
Don't get me wrong; I'm not one of these guns-are-bad hippies, and I don't particularly care for people who want to kill me and everybody like me because I don't believe the same thing they do. (Of course that could apply to religions, political affiliations, and many other things - extremists are scary no matter what their particular fetish is.) I'm just mystified by the "all is lost, but we have to keep fighting to keep all from being lost" argument.