Get's a little stickier when you find yourself on the other side of the table from old Abe, doesn't it Buckoo?
Wrong. That is not the argument at all.
The disagreement is with sanctimonious self-righteous people who claim to have some devine knowledge of a correspondence between some horrible crime, such as the murder of 3,000 innocent and unsuspecting civilians..and some sin or sins they decide this act is punishment for.
And the fact that they point their fingers at those things which just happen to be their pet peeves.
Big surprise.
The idea that anyone would exploit such a horrific crime against so many humans as an opportunity to push their personal agenda is warped and meanspirited.
Get's a little stickier when you find yourself on the other side of the table from old Abe, doesn't it Buckoo?
I didn't disagree with Lincoln at all.
I disagreed with your unbalanced and inaccurate application of his words to this situation.
Saying a nation is suffering for it's own doing is not the same thing as blaming a nation for an attack by murdering terrorists.
A distinction which seems to have gone over your head.
Not 'a nation'--America on 9/11/2001. Not 'a nation as a whole'--3000 countrymen. Not 'a portion of its population'--just the ones you don't like. You couldn't bear to say the specifics, could you?
What does that tell you?