I was a bit puzzled by that. I've learned to expect that Doug will normally argue fairly, and try to be accurate about the differences he has with people.

Two possible explanations. One is maybe it wasn't Doug, but someone else using his computer, which can always happen.

The other is, I suppose, that he wrote it, but was using a sort of figure of speech in which you say that, if the consequences of some action are such and such, then it is correct to say that someone who should have been in a position to foresee those consequences objectively intended those consequences.

In the same way someone arguing against Doug might say that he wanted to see hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqi women and children.

I don't think that way of arguing is very productive of anything but rancour and non-communication.

Actually to find that way of thinking in its classical form, bone up on the way Stalinists argued in the context of the Great Purge... How intriguing.