Text 17989, 222 rader
Skriven 2005-12-06 12:15:00 av Michiel van der Vlist (2:280/5555)
  Kommentar till text 17902 av FRANK SCHEIDT (1:123/140)
Ärende: [1/2] Sociopaths!
=========================
 >> 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] ...

It is not a matter of belief. I am not in the believing bussiness, I deal with
facts. Verifiable facts. I know of no verifiable method to objectively
determine if something is evil or not.

 >> 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
 MVDV>> it come to judge if a specific case qualifies as murder or not.

 > How can different opinions exist WRT murder?

By having different opinions about what is "human life", by having different
opinion about "justification". Etc, etc.

For example I say that executing the death penalty is murder. It is the
intentional termination of human life. In my book that is murder.

 > OK, I know what you mean, the abortuaries where "murder" is a
 > forbidden word.

A featus is not a human being. Therefor ending it's existance is not murder.

 >>> 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.

No, you are not. Yo are only seeing it from *your* side.

Frank are you really so naive as to believe that a se;f proclamation of
objectiveness has any maening?

If someone tells you "I am sober", would you believe him on his word?

 >> For example I can *easily* see the terrorists are evil incarnate ...

 MVDV>> So can I.

 > Good!

But I can *also* see them as freedom fighters, sacrificing themselves for a
cause.

 >>> 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!

No more worthless than your opinion wrt this matter.

 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*!

That assumes a lot. Fact is we do not know how much life it saved. But we do
know how much it cost....

 >> 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

It does not look that way. There are more active terrorists now than before the
invasion of Iraq.

 >>> 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.

That's not an answer to my question. The question was "was Japan a true
democracy in 1945?"

 >> 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.

We have been through this before and you have been proven wrong. 300.000 is a
conservative estimate.

 MVDV>>> It perfectly fits your definition of "terrorist".
 >
 >> No way!

 MVDV>> You refuse to see it, but there is no way around it. The
 MVDV>> objective of the bombs was to kill a *LOT* of people in
 MVDV>> order to terrorise Japan into surrender. Any military
 MVDV>> 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.

I have 60+ years of hindsight. I know a LOT more than anyone in the inner
circles then. The information is generally available.

 MVDV>> Killing a lot of people to terrorise is the mark of the terrorist.

 > True ... so?

That is what happened in Hiroshima and Nagasaka. By today's standard it was an
act of terrorism.

 >> 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
 MVDV>> unconditional support for Israel is one of the things
 MVDV>> in the chain of events that led up to 9/11.

 > The terrorists had no way of knowing how many of the 3,000
 > victims supported Israel.

Does not matter. Unconditional support for Israel *was* one of the things in
the chain of events.

 >>> 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
 MVDV>> before the invasion started.
 >
 > "Debunked" later ...

Give it up Frank. There were no WMD's in Irag. Your government fooled you.

 >> Since they haven't been found, obviously Saddam managed to move them.

 MVDV>> Since they were not found, they obviously were not there in
 MVDV>> the first place. GWB's own weapon inspectors said so.

 > And *suddenly* you believe them????

Nice try Frank.

You know very well that I bring them in in the hope thet *you* would believe
them.

*I* do not have to resort to believing your weapon inspectors. I already knew
there were no WMD's in Iraq before the invasion started. I has the report from
Hans Blix.

 > Decisions must be made during wartime.  The decision to bomb
 > Hiroshima and Nagasaki was obviously a very good one!

In hindsight, it is was quit obviously NOT needed to kill 300.000 people.

 MVDV>> There was a war going on remember. Risking their lives in war
 MVDV>> is what soldiers do. The risk of the people in the plane was
 MVDV>> nothing compared to those on the ground.

 > So in wartime you think it's essential that both sides face
 > equal danger?

In order to become a war time hero, the wannabee hereo at least has to face a
danger that is equally great as that of what or who he is going to conquer.

Killing is dragon with a SAM is not what makes a hero. Killing it with a sword
could be...

Cheers. Michiel

---
 * Origin: http://www.vlist.org (2:280/5555)