Text 21139, 192 rader
Skriven 2006-01-05 23:32:00 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> Not really... I was trying to point out that almost identical
 PK> situations were referenced by yourself as extreme ends of the
 PK> descriptive scales, IE you seem to have a really hard time showing
 PK> balance in your arguments. To me, when someone appears to not show
 PK> balance in an argument, then I really feel a need to question any
 PK> summation they are trying to do. Its not so much that I disagree with
 PK> them, I just like to find out HOW they came to that conclusion.  
 
 FS> It seems to be *you* who cannot understand the difference between 
 FS> peacetime mass-murder (WTC bombing) and wartime attacks against 
 FS> an enemy 

 PK> Simply because I see that situation as different to the way you
 PK> describe, IE it did not happen during peace-time. Now who is not
 PK> understanding the difference. 

I'd say *you* since the 9/11 attack obviously *did* happen during 
peacetime.  No nation on earth had declared war against us.

 PK> The reality is Frank we could discuss this all day long and get
 PK> nowhere, simply because you refuse to acknowledge that another person
 PK> has a viewpoint that is different to your viewpoint.

Not so.  I realize you have a viewpoint different from my own.  
Unfortunately your viewpoint seems a strange one, not based on 
reality.  You seem to think the US was at war during 9/11.  Take 
my word for it, we were not!
 
 FS> "Balanced"?  Do you mean that I should give equal "credit" to 
 FS> murderers as to patriots?
 
 PK> Equal "credit" for the RATIONAL of their stance, NOT for the actions
 PK> that resulted from that stance. Again, if you dont KNOW how your enemy
 PK> reached a decsion, then you do not really KNOW your enemy.
 
 FS> For one thing we cannot know the reason the WTC murderers had for 
 FS> doing such an evil thing. 

 PK> Well people dont do things without having a reason for doing it, and
 PK> the reason for 911 is pretty darned obvious to many people, except
 PK> perhaps Frank. It was simply a retaliation against the US for
 PK> activities the USA has been carrying out that were against the people
 PK> that carried out the 911 attacks. But I am fairly sure we have been
 PK> over this before... 

Huh?  15 of the 19 terrorists doing the bombing of the WTC were 
Saudi Arabian citizens.  We presumably had friendly relations 
with the Saudis hence that nation had no reason to attack us.

 FS> IOW we cannot know what their rationale was for doing it. 

 PK> I think that may be more because you do not wish to see the reasons...
 
It might be helpful if you could point out something *specific* 
... [sigh] ...
 
 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 
 PK> one-eyed can you get Frank? 
 FS>  
 FS> I believe I've pointed out before that I have *two* eyes ...

 PK> Then please try opening BOTH of them for a change.
 
They both *are* open ... so?
 
 FS> Did I say that?  
 
 PK> As indicated above, its simply the way you present your "case", it
 PK> comes out as so one-sided, that any logical thinker just has to query
 PK> what you really mean. If your statements contained details that
 PK> explained the reason for your beliefs, then we 
 PK> might have a much easier
 PK> time tring to understand what you are saying.

I think I've presented my case very clearly, however, let me 
reiterate briefly.  Fanatical murderers killed around 3,000 
innocent people during peacetime by bombing the WTC and the 
Pentagon.  They had no known reason for so-doing.

What could be clearer than *that*?

 FS> You approve of the murders of the innocent people in the WTC?  

 PK> You will never find any message from me anywhere that says I approved
 PK> of that, its simply your one-eyed viewpoint that convinced yourself
 PK> that I must have said it.

I *asked* a question.  A simple "Yes" or "No" would have 
sufficed instead of your usual insulting evasion ... 
 
 FS> You need a "reason" for my hatred of murderers?!?!? 

 PK> Absolutely not, in fact on that point alone we are quite similar. Our
 PK> difference comes done to identifyng WHAT and WHO is or is not a
 PK> murderer. 
 
 FS> *I*, OTOH, deal only with reality. 

 PK> My problem with that is your definition of Reality is only a partial
 PK> reality, because you APPEAR to ignore the other side of the coin...
 
I don't think so.
 
 PK> No State declared war. However, if you consider all the people of El
 PK> Qaeda to be a nation then they have declared war.
 
 FS> Al Qaeda is not a nation.  

 PK> Slight divergence here, what (in your thoughts) is the difference
 PK> between a country and a nation? In asking this I am thinking that the
 PK> North American Indian "Nation" is a term that has been used in the past
 PK> and I am pretty certain there is no North American Indian country as
 PK> such. 

In general "country" and "nation" usually mean the same things.  
"Country", of course, has other meanings such as "the area 
outside of a city".  As for Nation, the "Indian Nation" referred 
to the Indian territory which was governed by Indians.  Hence it 
was a true nation.  Actually, of course, there were a number of 
them, probably corresponding to different Indian tribes.

 PK> So I can agree that Al Qaeda is not a country or an inhabitant of a
 PK> single country, but are they not a nation of people similar to the
 PK> North American Indian?

No.  The Indian Nation had boundaries.
 
 PK> then ergo - There really IS a Holy war Frank. 

But Al Qaeda is *not* a nation.

 PK> Those events carry quite
 PK> a bit more credibility than that presented by a single person in a
 PK> Fidonet Echo. 
 
 FS> Which nation declared it?  

 PK> Al Qaeda.
 
Is Al Qaeda a member of the United Nations?
 
 FS> See above ... a single individual, not 
 FS> heading a nation, cannot declare war.
 
 PK> Bin Laden sure did in the video's released. If Bin Laden does not
 PK> lead, or head your "terrorist" group, then why are 
 PK> the US so interested in catching him?  
 
 FS> Do you think we're interested in catching that murderer because 
 FS> he "declared war"?  

 PK> I doubt that is the primary reason.
 
 FS> For one thing I don't think he actually said that.

 PK> As I do not speak their lanaguage I can't be 100% sure what was on the
 PK> tapes, I can only take the english spoken comments surrounding the
 PK> showing of those tapes, and as long as they are correct then I am happy
 PK> to accept it was said by Bin Laden. 
 
Osama bin Laden could have said a lot of things.  However as time 
passes he comes closer to capture -- assuming he's still alive.  
Furthermore, as time passes he becomes less-and-less important.
 
 FS> Sure there's another perspective -- as I've pointed out it cannot 
 FS> be explained properly ...
 
 PK> And which party do you think is failing there then...
 
 FS> Huh?  Do you mean political party, i.e., Democrats or 
 FS> Republicans?

 PK> Trying to be obtuse again eh Frank. Ok, let me clarify the question
 PK> for you -  
 PK> Relating to YOUR statement above -
 
 FS> Sure there's another perspective -- as I've pointed out it cannot 
 FS> be explained properly ...

 PK> Now WHO has failed to properly explain the other perspective.

*You*, I suppose.  Since you rely on a non-existent nation which 
has supposedly declared war on us.

... "Thus conscience does make cowards of us all" ÄÄ Hamlet

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