Text 17902, 254 rader
Skriven 2005-12-05 08:03:00 av FRANK SCHEIDT (1:123/140)
Kommentar till en text av MICHIEL VAN DER VLIST
Ärende: [1/2] Sociopaths!
=========================
>>> Part 1 of 2...
-=> Quoting Michiel Van Der Vlist to Frank Scheidt <=-
MVDV>>> Terrorist or freedom fighter, it is all a matter of perspective.
MVDV>>> Just as "murder" or "collateral damage". In the end it is those
MVDV>>> who write the history books that say which is what.
>> Not so. A terrorist is one who is trying to terrorize a mass
>> of people through his terrible actions.
MVDV>> That is how it looks in the eyes of the enemy of his people.
> But, viewed *objectively* the terrorist is an evil person
> doing evil deeds ...
MVDV> 100% objectivity exist only in mathematics. And even there only up to
MVDV> a point. When it comes to "good" and "evil" there is no objectivity.
If you truly *believe* there is no objective *evil*, I really
feel sorry for you ... [sigh] ...
> I presume you object to murder
MVDV> Of course I do. I strongly object to murder!
Good!
> ... maybe I'm mistaken in that belief ...
MVDV> Possibly because you and I seem to have different opinions when it
MVDV> come to judge if a specific case qualifies as murder or not.
How can different opinions exist WRT murder? OK, I know what you
mean, the abortuaries where "murder" is a forbidden word.
>> A freedom fighter, OTOH, is fighting an *enemy* to achieve
>> freedom for his people.
MVDV>> That is how it looks in the eyes of his people.
> See above, re "objectively"
MVDV> See avbove, objectivity is a fiction.
With *you*, perhaps, but not with me. *I* am an objective
observer of life.
MVDV>> All a matter of perspective.
> Not really -- if the observer is *objective*.
MVDV> There is no such thing as an objective observer.
You're "talking" with one *now*!
> For example I can *easily* see the terrorists are evil incarnate ...
MVDV> So can I.
Good!
> and *I* am objective.
MVDV> No, you are not. Nobody is.
See above ...
>> There's no way one could look upon the murderers who killed
>> three thousand innocent people that way!
MVDV>> Of course there is a way. Just look at it from their point of view.
> But that's an *insane* point-of-view.
MVDV> In your eyes it is. In their's it probably is not.
But viewed *objectively* their opinion WRT this matter is
worthless!
> Do you support insanity?
MVDV> That depends. I do not reject insanity per se. I do reject criminal
MVDV> acts performed by insane people though. I also reject criminal acts by
MVDV> sane people.
OK ...
>> It was done *deliberately*
MVDV>> And the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were an accident?
> We were talking about *terrorists*! Stay focussed!
MVDV> Mow you are getting it! Indeed we were talking about terrorists.
MVDV> Dropping the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was an evil and insane
MVDV> deed. Those who did it fit your definition of *terrorist*.
Not so! It was an attempt to save over a million lives -- and it
*worked*!
>> for no adequate reason which makes it murder.
MVDV>> For them the reason was adequate: they wanted to teach the US a
MVDV>> lessen. Unfortunateley it didn't take.
> They were all insane.
MVDV> Only as seen from your perspective.
As seen by *any* objective observer!
> Insane men cannot teach anyone a "lesson"
MVDV> It is the other way around. Insane man can not be taught a lesson.
MVDV> That is why the lesson of 9/11 did not take.
I think after thousands of terrorists have been killed in
Afghanistan and Iraq they're *starting* to learn the lesson ...
>> So you are admitting the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki
>> *were* guilty!
MVDV>> You are getting too predictable Frank, I knew you were going to say
MVDV>> that. Now read again: "in a true democracy" I wrote. Was Japan a true
MVDV>> democracy in 1945? Don't think so.
> Now you ask me a question then answer it without letting me
> respond ... [sigh] ...
MVDV> How so? I just gave *my* answer to the question. Nothing stops you
MVDV> from putting *your* answer next to it.
OK ...
MVDV> Except of course if you have no answer....
Of course I have an answer. It's my opinion that Japan was a
monarchy.
>> I had never looked upon it that way, considering only
>> the military objectives of the bombing.
MVDV>> Military objectives my foot! The obvious objective was to
MVDV>> "teach them a lesson". To scare the shit out of them by
MVDV>> killing as many people as possible.
> The rail marshalling yards were the target ...
MVDV> Could easely have been taken in a conventional raid. No need to kill
MVDV> 300.000 people just to hit those targets.
Actually, as I recall, only something on the order of 200,000
enemy were killed.
MVDV>> It perfectly fits your definition of "terrorist".
> No way!
MVDV> You refuse to see it, but there is no way around it. The objective of
MVDV> the bombs was to kill a *LOT* of people in order to terrorise Japan
MVDV> into surrender. Any military targets in the area were just an excuse.
How can you say that? Were you in the inner loop of those who
made the decision to bomb? I don't think so.
MVDV> Killing a lot of people to terrorise is the mark of the terrorist.
True ... so?
MVDV>>> 9/11 is something that the USA brought onto itself. The
MVDV>>> people of the USA were not innocent bystanders in the
MVDV>>> chain of events that led up to it.
>
>> What was the "chain of events" as you see it?
MVDV>> For one: the unconditional support of Israel, thereby committing
MVDV>> a grave injustice against the people of Palestine.
> While I have long opposed the support of Israel by many American
> politicians (in fact I oppose supporting *any* foreign gummint)
MVDV> It does not really matter, see below...
> if the powers-to-be here decide to support Israel they have
> the right to do so.
MVDV> And you support those peowers that be. That makes you part responsible
MVDV> for their acts.
Not so. Do you think they ask me, "Frank, what do you think
about our knee-jerk support of Israel?"? Of *course* they
don't. If they *did* I'd say get out of the Near-East. Let
those barbarians fight their endless wars!
> I have *long* proposed a 100% hands-off policy WRT the
> Israel/Palestine conflict. Let them fight it out and let
> the best men win (grammatically the "better men") So that was
> no excuse for the murderers.
MVDV> I didn't say it was an excuse. I said the attitude of unconditional
MVDV> support for Israel is one of the things in the chain of events that led
MVDV> up to 9/11.
The terrorists had no way of knowing how many of the 3,000
victims supported Israel.
>> Merely "believing" something doesn't make it *true*!
MVDV>> You guys should have thought of that before attacking Irak on the
MVDV>> pretext that there were WMD's.
> There was no "pretext". Intelligence sources of *five*
> nations had assured us there were.
MVDV> All based on old and false information and debunked long before the
MVDV> invasion started.
"Debunked" later ...
> Since they haven't been found, obviously Saddam managed to move them.
MVDV> Since they were not found, they obviously were not there in the first
MVDV> place. GWB's own weapon inspectors said so.
And *suddenly* you believe them????
MVDV>>> Throwing a weapon of mass destruction from the safety of an aircraft
MVDV>>> at altitude and speed is not an act of heroism.
>
>> It was an act of heroism because they didn't know if the bomb
>> would explode in such a way as to kill the plane's crew!
MVDV>> There was the test of the first bomb, they had a fair idea of there
MVDV>> chances.
> "Fair idea" isn't good enough when one is facing death.
Decisions must be made during wartime. The decision to bomb
Hiroshima and Nagasaki was obviously a very good one!
MVDV> There was a war going on remember. Risking their lives in war is what
MVDV> soldiers do. The risk of the people in the plane was nothing compared
MVDV> to those on the ground.
So in wartime you think it's essential that both sides face equal
danger?
>>> Continued to next message...
___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.20
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5
* Origin: Try Our Web Based QWK: DOCSPLACE.ORG (1:123/140)
|