Text 20866, 186 rader
Skriven 2006-01-03 11:32:00 av FRANK SCHEIDT (1:123/140)
     Kommentar till en text av PETER KNAPPER
Ärende: [1/2] Lack of Gratitude
===============================
-=> Quoting Peter Knapper to Frank Scheidt <=-

 PK> Oh the concepts really are there, and others see them too, but it
 PK> appears that you have 2 ways of viewing the same action. If it is  
 PK> being done BY the USA, then the USA is saving the world, however 
 PK> if the same thing is being done TO the USA, then its being done 
 PK> by terrorists. 
 
 FS> But they're *not* "the same action".  The US is defending itself 
 FS> -- and the rest of the civilized world.  
 
 PK> The USA is defending itself by "attacking" a supposed enemy, EXACTLY
 PK> the same as the "Terrorists" are defending thjemselves by attacking  PK>
 PK> the USA. 
 
 FS> A "supposed" enemy?  Don't you consider the murderous 
 FS> "insurgents" in Iraq to be a real enemy?  

 PK> The USA have been supposedly attacking El Queda, and the USA says that
 PK> El Queda was "aided" by Iraq. I can certainly see the relevance to El
 PK> Queda, but the EXACT tie in with Iraq and the Weapons of Mass
 PK> Destruction is tenuous at best. Then one must also ask how this ties in
 PK> directly with the USA, and again, one struggles to find the basis for
 PK> this. Its like GWB assembled rumor upon rumor to build a loose case for
 PK> "thats where we need to hit", and then struggles to explain why NONE of
 PK> their predictions have stood the test of providing any genuine
 PK> evidence. Are you not concerned that absolutely NONE of the claims
 PK> about Iraq have shown even the slightest piece of validity to them?  

Your question includes a false premise hence cannot be logically 
answered.

As for our attacks on Al Qaeda, our "war" is against terrorism 
itself, against terrorists in general.  Some are members of Al 
Qaeda, some are not.  Saddam Hussein was aiding Palestinian 
terrorists by paying their families.  Hence Saddam was linked to 
terrorism. 
 
 PK> And consider that no part of the "civilised world" requested this
 PK> action from the USA, so dont try and drag the rest of us into your
 PK> actions. 
 
 FS> But it's in your own interest that we *act* by trying to save the 
 FS> world from the terrorists ...

 PK> So are you suggesting that the rest of the world should submit to
 PK> Uncle Sam  determining what is right and wrong for the rest of the
 PK> world? Surely the "results" from Iraq are enough to show that almost
 PK> no-one has any trust in what the USA says any more, GWB has destroyed
 PK> USA credibilty... 
 
That's merely your opinion ...

 PK> So are you now suggesting that the USA didnt really know what they
 PK> were getting into? That doesn't sound like a logical thinker to me...
 FS>  
 FS> Whom are you accusing of being illogical, me or the US leadership?
 
 PK> I would have expected any logical thinker to userstand the phrase
 PK> "that the USA didn't..." means exactly that, the USA government, and
 PK> not yourself. 
 
 FS> I am part of the US.  I voted for the gummint now in power.

 PK> I am not sure how you want me to read that reply, either its a
 PK> non-reply to the original question, or its an admission that you are
 PK> not a logical thinker. Either is not good...

You have set up two straw-men.  That's no more effective than 
*one* straw-man. 
 
 PK> The method chosen to deliver the weapon has nothing to do with the
 PK> result of that delivery, the effect was the same, 
 PK> even if the scale was quite different. 
 FS>  
 FS> But you are comparing them to the suicide/bombing terrorists!
 
 PK> I was comparig one attack with another... that is all.
 
 FS> Nevertheless the implication was clearly there ...

 PK> That I was comparing one attack wth another, REGARDLESS of how one
 PK> classifies those involved.
 
So what was your *point*.  The Hiroshima attack was clearly 
justified while the WTC attack was merely large-scale murder.
 
 PK> They can't be "wars" if they were undeclared...
 FS>  
 FS> The term war here is used in the same common way as in LBJ's "War 
 FS> on Poverty" or Ford's "War on Inflation" simply meaning an 
 FS> extraordinarily vigorous action -- but not a real *war*.

 PK> If there was no declaration of war, then thats sounds remarkedly
 PK> similar to a Terrorist attack to me...
 
To *you* perhaps, but not to me.
 
 PK> What peacetime? Your "terrorists" had already called their actions a
 PK> "Holly war" against the USA. That sounds like a declaration to me...
 
 FS> Huh?  There *is* no such thing as a "holy war".  That's pure 
 FS> nonsense! 

 PK> Its not nonsense to those that declared it!
 
It's nonsense to the rest of us!  BTW, do *you* believe in the 
concept of a "holy war"??

 PK> But you are still very much in denial regarding the previous actions
 PK> by the USA as being a cause for 911. To be able to understand that you
 PK> have to look at the actions from the perspective of the "other side".
 
 FS> *Nothing* the US has done justified the murders of 3,000 
 FS> innocent people -- especially during peacetime!
 PK> 
 FS> Hence you should reassess your thinking. 
 
 PK> Pot... kettle...
 PK> 
 FS> You're mumbling again ... [sigh] ...

 PK> Damn, I must be catching that from you........;-)
 
I try to avoid mumbling ...

 FS> There was no fanaticism whatsoever in the bombing of Hiroshima -- 
 FS> merely a desire to save a million lives ...
 
 PK> By killing thousands of people. So where is the 
 PK> dfference with the WTC attack?  
 
 FS> I'll explain it again, in very simple terms.  Please pay 
 FS> attention this time.
 
 FS> Hiroshima bombing:  Wartime ... done to save a million lives
 FS> WTC bombing:  Peacetime ... done out of insane (fanatic) 
 FS> viciousness by murderers ...
 
 FS> See the difference now?

 PK> Nope, in BOTH situations, War had been declared. See the similarity
 PK> now Frank? 

Since no war has been declared since December 1941 there *is* no 
similarity ...
 
 PK> What peacetime? A "Holy war" had already been declared, several times
 PK> over... 
 
 FS> There *is* no such thing as a "holy war".

 PK> Your statement is simply a denial of the fact that a "Holy War" was
 PK> declared. Do you not remember it being broadcast all over the world by
 PK> American TV stations?

Do you believe everything you see on TV?
 
 PK> Until you can acknowledge all these events and look at them from a
 PK> balanced perspective, you will simply be uable to rationalise the USA
 PK> actions that you are attemping to rationalise. The very first part of
 PK> that task is to acknowledge that others have a right to live their
 PK> lives they way they wish to live them, without anyone (including the
 PK> USA) trying to impose their will on them.
 
So long as the way they wish to live their lives doesn't include 
murdering people I suppose that's OK.

 FS> I don't think it's that simple.  What happened is this:  Those 
 FS> people *attacked* us!  We are now defending ourselves ...

 PK> By invading other countries while using a different reason as
 PK> justification for the US actions.

 PK> The bottom line is that there must be 2 "sides" to any conflict. Now
 PK> that you have stated the USA "side" to this many times over, then what
 PK> does the USA consider to be the "other side" of this conflict? 

The "other side" is obviously based on irrationality hence cannot 
be explained properly.

... A closed mouth gathers no foot.

___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.20
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5
 * Origin: Try Our Web Based QWK: DOCSPLACE.ORG (1:123/140)