Text 20933, 188 rader
Skriven 2006-01-03 22:49:00 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> The USA is defending itself by "attacking" a supposed enemy, EXACTLY
 PK> the same as the "Terrorists" are defending 
 PK> 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> I consider people who are residents of a country and defending their
 PK> country from invaders to not be insurgents. So far, over 90% of those
 PK> killed in Iraq were citizens of that country. Those people were NOT
 PK> insurgents, and there is no way I would accept that they are simply
 PK> "collateral damage". 

They have always been *called* "insurgents" in the news.  After 
all an insurgent is merely a person rebelling against authority.  
Hence *most* insurgents are probably citizens of that nation -- 
the direct opposite of what you seem to think ...
 
 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... 
 
 FS> That's merely your opinion ...

 PK> Thankfully, you do "allow" people to hold opinions, however that it
 PK> also another bypass of the original question by you.
 
OK, I'll answer your question (above):  It would obviously be in 
the best interest of the world.
 
 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...
 
 FS> You have set up two straw-men.  That's no more effective than 
 FS> *one* straw-man. 

 PK> But it still results in you avoiding the question.
 
I have answered your question directly -- see above ...
 
 FS> So what was your *point*.  The Hiroshima attack was clearly 
 FS> justified while the WTC attack was merely large-scale murder.

 PK> And that WAS exactly my point, that you are completely unable to
 PK> rationalise one of the 2 events. 

The usual meaning of "rationalize" is to use reasoning which is 
self-satisfying but is not accurate.  Is that what you mean?

 PK> You seem to being living a life with nothing but coins in yor pocket
 PK> with a head, but no tail, and that is a pretty consistant one eyed view
 PK> to me.  

I live no such life, thus you are wrong *again*!

 PK> I actually hold respect for people that take up firm positions
 PK> opposite to me on something, provided they are able to demonstrate
 PK> their thinking is balanced. I may not agree with their conclusions, but
 PK> I respect the fact that they have rationalised their stance, and
 PK> contrary to your continunous statements about your "rational thinking",
 PK> so far you seem (to me) to be almost completely missing that sort of
 PK> balance.  

There's a difference between thinking rationally -- as *I* 
obviously do and to "rationalize their stance".  Think about it.

 PK> Initially I looked for it as a simple issue of how you were stating
 PK> your case, and the fact that we may have agreed on the criteria for the
 PK> decision, but disagreed on the decision itself. But other than a few
 PK> minor points where you did show true understanding, the bulk of your
 PK> arguments can only lead me to one conclusion, that something (and I
 PK> have no idea what it might be), is preventng you from forming a true
 PK> balanced opinion.  

"Balanced"?  Do you mean that I should give equal "credit" to 
murderers as to patriots?

 PK> Somehow I can't see our discussion objectively heading any place from
 PK> here.......;-(
 
It would, if you would look at it objectively.  Think of what I'm 
said ... really *think* about it, without continuing this 
knee-jerk opposition ...
 
 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!
  
 FS> It's nonsense to the rest of us!  

 PK> I see, if your oponents beliefs do not fit into Frank's view of the
 PK> world, then they must be terrorists. Just how more one-eyed can you get
 PK> Frank? 

Did I say that?  I don't think so.  You keep trying to put words 
into my mouth. That *never* works!  For example, *your* beliefs 
obviously do not fit into my world-view but I don't consider 
*you* to be a terrorist?  ... [sigh] ...
 
 FS> BTW, do *you* believe in the concept of a "holy war"??

 PK> I have to, because over the centuries there have been so MANY wars,
 PK> all fought in the name of religion. If you do not believe in a Holy
 PK> war, then you do not believe in Religion. Note that I say "Religion",
 PK> NOT "A specific Religion". 

False premise.  A person can be religious without believing in 
the false concept of a "holy war".  Perhaps you're thinking of 
the "just war" concept which *does* exist.
 
 FS> *Nothing* the US has done justified the murders of 3,000 
 FS> innocent people -- especially during peacetime!
 FS> Hence you should reassess your thinking. 
 
 FS> Hiroshima bombing:  Wartime ... done to save a million lives
 FS> WTC bombing:  Peacetime ... done out of insane (fanatic) 
 FS> viciousness by murderers ...
 FS>  
 FS> See the difference now?
 
 PK> Nope, in BOTH situations, War had been declared. See the similarity
 PK> now Frank? 
 
No.  Tell me, which nations have declared war involving the 
current wave of terrorism?  Be specific, please.

 FS> Since no war has been declared since December 1941 there *is* no 
 FS> similarity ...

 PK> That is simply denial by omission.
 
That is *true* denial of something which doesn't exist.
 
 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?
 
I've heard the term being mentioned on TV at times, yes, but that 
doesn't make it a *fact*!

 FS> Do you believe everything you see on TV?

 PK> Not everything, but I recall 2 specific events that certainly carried
 PK> some weight regarding this situation -
 PK> 1. International News teams (including American) showed footages
 PK> supposedly from your "insurgents" stating there was a "Holy War",

Insurgents spout nonsense, then ... name the *nation* which has 
declared war.  Specifically!   Was it Iran?   Saudi Arabia?  
Jordan?   Which one?

 PK> 2. And then GWB is shown standing in front of a room full of news
 PK> reporters and makes a public statement regarding the "Holy war", 

He might have been using that term as a figure of speech.  For me 
to know I'd have to see it within the context of his talk.

 PK> then ergo - There really IS a Holy war Frank. Those events carry quite
 PK> a bit more credibility than that presented by a single person in a
 PK> Fidonet Echo. 

Which nation declared it?  See above ... a single individual, not 
heading a nation, cannot declare war.
 
 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 
 PK> times over, then what
 PK> does the USA consider to be the "other side" of this conflict? 
 
 FS> The "other side" is obviously based on irrationality hence cannot 
 FS> be explained properly.

 PK> QED, you cannot even acknowledge that there is another perspective.

Sure there's another perspective -- as I've pointed out it cannot 
be explained properly ...
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5
 * Origin: Try Our Web Based QWK: DOCSPLACE.ORG (1:123/140)