Text 21241, 196 rader
Skriven 2006-01-07 00:01:00 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> Please note that as it is the Summer Holidays over here I may be away
 PK> from the machine over the next week (or so) and unable to reply...

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

 PK> Well I say they did, so let us agree to disagree on this, ok?
 
OK ...
 
 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.
 
 FS> Not so.  I realize you have a viewpoint different from my own.  
 FS> Unfortunately your viewpoint seems a strange one, not based on 
 FS> reality.  You seem to think the US was at war during 9/11.  Take 
 FS> my word for it, we were not!

 PK> War does not have to be declared by both sides for it to happen.
 
True enough, but what typically happens is that one side declares 
war then attacks the other (e.g., Germany 1941), or one nation 
attacks the other *then* declares war (e.g., Japan 1941), or one 
nation is attacked then declares war against the aggressor 
(e.g., US 1941).  

IOW *some* nation actually declares war.  On September 11, 2001 
the world was at peace -- at least the US was not at war with 
anyone.  Then the terrorists attacked -- no declaration of war 
was given by them before or after the attack.  Hence the attack 
took place during peacetime.
 
 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... 

You have never specifically named the people who were the 
mythical "victims", and what was done to them.
 
 FS> Huh?  15 of the 19 terrorists doing the bombing of the WTC were 
 FS> Saudi Arabian citizens.  We presumably had friendly relations 
 FS> with the Saudis hence that nation had no reason to attack us.

 PK> And we all know why the USA did not take on Saudi Arabia for
 PK> harbouring "terrorists"...

Huh?  I've often puzzled over that.  How do you know?  And why 
didn't we? 
 
 FS> IOW we cannot know what their rationale was for doing it. 
 
 PK> I think that may be more because you do not wish 
 PK> to see the reasons...

If I ever did *see* the reasons I might regret it.  That's true.  
However their so-called rational has never been well-described.
  
 FS> It might be helpful if you could point out something *specific* 

 PK> I say again, I think that may be more because you do not WISH to see
 PK> the reasons...

Maybe, but, I have to *first* actually see them ... 
 
 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> I believe I've pointed out before that I have *two* eyes ...
 
 PK> Then please try opening BOTH of them for a change.
  
 FS> They both *are* open ... so?

 PK> Then one appears to be defective because you do not appear to be
 PK> seeing the FULL picture...

Actually I have almost 20/20 vision in both eyes (without 
glasses).  IOW I have good eyesight. 
 
 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 might have a much easier
 PK> time tring to understand what you are saying.
 
I think I've explained them thoroughly.  You seem to have a 
desire to simply ignore what I've said ...

 FS> I think I've presented my case very clearly,

 PK> And I say you haven't, so let us agree to disagree on that point ok?
 
OK ...
 
 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.

There you go again!  See above re 20/20 ... [sigh] ...
 
 FS> I *asked* a question.  A simple "Yes" or "No" would have 
 FS> sufficed instead of your usual insulting evasion ... 

 PK> Incorrect... A simple "Yes" or "No" would not have stated my reasoning
 PK> for saying "Yes" or "No", and knowing your preference for ignoring
 PK> certain components of the conversation, I wished to ensure full
 PK> clarification was available to you, however it seems that you cannot
 PK> understand my reply as a fully qualified "No".

OK, so you say "No" ... that's good to know -- finally ... 
 
 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. 
 
Actually it's very easy to define a murderer.  What about the 
standard definition has you confused?

 FS> *I*, OTOH, deal only with reality. 

 PK> To me, you only seem to deal with partial reality and ignore the bits
 PK> you don't want.

Interesting ...
 
 FS> In general "country" and "nation" usually mean the same things.  
 FS> "Country", of course, has other meanings such as "the area 
 FS> outside of a city".  As for Nation, the "Indian Nation" referred 
 FS> to the Indian territory which was governed by Indians.  Hence it 
 FS> was a true nation.  

 PK> Ok, however is the Indian Nation not located on land that is part of
 PK> the USA? Does the Indian Nation have its own laws or legal system? Do
 PK> the Federal laws of the USA not have the ability to "override", the
 PK> Laws of each state or those (if any) of the Indian Nation?

Actually the Indian land is usually surrounded by the US, 
depending upon where it's located.  The US gummint has screwed 
the Indians in the past so I suppose Federal laws could be 
written which would do it again.  So, what's your point?  BTW, 
the Indians learned not to attack the US -- just as the 
terrorists are now learning (I hope!) ... 
 
 FS> Which nation declared it?  
 
 PK> Al Qaeda.
 
 FS> Is Al Qaeda a member of the United Nations?

 PK> Not that I am aware of, however there are several members of the UN
 PK> that actually back the Al Qaeda perspective, in sometiems "interesting"
 PK> ways. IE if not directly, then indirectly (EG: abstaining from a vote).
 
If Al Qaeda were an actual nation the United Nations, corrupt as 
it is, would be scrambling to admit it as a member.  Since the US 
lacks an "Al Qaeda" nation, that's strong evidence Al Qaeda is 
like the Mafia -- merely an evil organization.
 
 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.
 
Which is that?

 FS> *You*, I suppose.  

 PK> Again, the only thing you are demonstrating here is your abilty to
 PK> ignore the other side of the coin. 

And that other side is??????

... Carpenter:  A guy who nails down his agreement.

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