Text 18644, 214 rader
Skriven 2005-12-14 03:12:00 av FRANK SCHEIDT (1:123/140)
     Kommentar till en text av MICHIEL VAN DER VLIST
Ärende: [2/2] Sociopaths!
=========================
-=> Quoting Michiel Van Der Vlist to Frank Scheidt <=-

 >>> False!  A hero is one who risks his own life for the common good.

 MVDV>>> Isn't that what Mohammed Atta did? Sacifice his life for the common
 MVDV>>> good? In his perception of "common good" of course.
 >
 >> No.  He did *not* give his life for the common good.

 MVDV>> Read again: _in_his_perception_
 
 > One cannot know what *he* (Atta) perceived ...

 MVDV> We have the testimony of his accomplices...

And you actually *believe* them?!   Amazing!

 MVDV> Anyway, if you are right, we can also not know that he did not dying
 MVDV> believing he acted for the common good.

Only an insane man would think by murdering many innocent people 
he acted for the common good.

 MVDV>> Obviously that differs from *your* perception of what is
 MVDV>> the common good.
 
 >> He gave his life based on some insane misconception.

 MVDV>> In your opinion...
 
 > And my opinion is correct ...

 MVDV> Opinions are just that: opinions. They are all equally correct.
 
Hardly ...

 >> Consider all the Arabs who have been killed as a result of his
 >> "sacrifice".  Are those deaths part of his "common good"?

 MVDV>> Collateral damage....
 
 > But those homicide/bombers *wanted* to kill them --

 MVDV> You just said that we do not know what went on in their minds....

As Ralph Waldo Emerson once wisely observed, "A foolish 
consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." ... [sigh] ...
 
 > "collateral damage" applies only to unintended deaths,

 MVDV> How do you know their intent was to kill Arabs?

Huh?  We were talking of the murderers who bombed the Twin 
Towers, now, suddenly you're talking about killing Arabs ...
 
 > for example, Iraqis accidentally killed by American troops who
 > were aiming at terrorists.

 MVDV> Same for the Arabs in the twin towers. They were accidentally killed
 MVDV> when aiming for US voters...

Strange, but I hadn't realized that ... I *still* don't, in fact 
...
 
 >>> A hero is *not* one who deliberately slaughters 3,000 for no
 >>> valid reason!

 MVDV>>> Then neither is one who slaughters 300.000.
 
 >> OK, so?

 MVDV>> So we agree on that.
 
 > Sure.  However I suspect you are thinking of 300,000 in other
 > than a *theoretical* way, as *I* was.

 MVDV> The people who died at Hiroshima and Nagasaki are not "theoretical".

They died that others might live ...
 
 >> BTW what is the slaughter involving the 300,000?

 MVDV>> The bombs at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
 
 > First, I doubt 300,000 were killed as a result of the bombing.

 MVDV> Simply check the facts, it is well documented by now.

The actual number is of no significance ...
 
 > Second, most of them were collateral damage.

 MVDV> Then the same goes for the people killed in 9/11.

Not so.  Murder victims are *not* "collateral damage"
 
 >> You've got that nearly correct.  The Korean thing was a UN
 >> Police Action ... it had nothing to do with any needed declaration
 >> of war by the U.S.

 MVDV>> Yeah, well you are always quick to hide behind the UN when it suits
 MVDV>> your agenda....
 
 > You *deny* it was a UN Police Action as I stated??

 MVDV> No, just that it suits your agenda very well that *formally* it was a
 MVDV> UN action...

Sorry, if you find my constantly sticking to facts to be 
*offensive* ... [sigh] ... 

 >> Vietnam was not really a war.

 MVDV>> If it walks like a duck, quacks like a dog and swims like a
 MVDV>> duck, then for all practical purposes it IS a duck.
 
 > OK, but Vietnam wasn't really a war.

 MVDV> A war by another name is still a war.

I realize since you are not a native-English-speaker you're 
aren't familiar with all the subtleties of our speech.
 
 >> Lyndon Johnson merely sent hundreds-of-thousands of American
 >> soldiers to help South Vietnam -- a *big* mistake!

 MVDV>> A mistake indeed. And now GWB made that same mistake by "merely
 MVDV>> sending hundreds of thousands soldiers to help Iraq.....
 
 > Not a valid comparison.  GWB invaded Iraq to help *us*, to
 > defend *us*, as well as the world, of course.

 MVDV> To defend the continued oil supply you mean. Just that and only that.

Not *only* that, but that among other objectives ...
 
 >> Guatemala?  What's *that* one about?

 MVDV>> Another "police action" that went sour.
 
 > I'm not familiar with all the UN activities ...

 MVDV> Not a UN activity. It was the incident where the US pulled out after a
 MVDV> helicopter went down and the corpses of US soldiers were dragged
 MVDV> through the streets.

Wow!  And all the time *I* thought that took place in Somalia.  
How could I have been so mistaken ... and the TV images showed 
all blacks as the enemy doing the dragging.  I didn't realize 
there were so many blacks in Guatemala.  I presume you know 
Somalia is located in Africa while Guatemala can be found in 
Central America.  Or do European geography books differ from 
ours?
 
 >> As for Afghanistan I have no idea why the Congress didn't
 >> declare war on Afghanistan -- or Iraq.

 MVDV>> Then why expect others to follow that obsolete custom?
 
 > Because that's the way it should be done!

 MVDV> Says who?

I say it ... as well as all reasonable people, of course ...

 MVDV>>> These days one just flies towards the target an drops the
 MVDV>>> bombs. That's what atta did.
 
 >> The actions of a madman can seldom be explained ... [sigh] ...

 MVDV>> Indeed, so don't bother trying to explain why GWB attacked Iraq.
 
 > The reason for the invasion is well-known.  GWB explained
 > himself eloquently ...

 MVDV> He lied.

Oh?  That's what some claim.  However no one has ever come up 
with the alleged lie itself.  Why is it, do you suppose, some 
will accuse GWB of lying yet cannot come up with the specific 
lie.  Doesn't that bother you?

 MVDV>>> The concept of civilised war was abandoned with the inception
 MVDV>>> of fire arms. when one did not have to come close enough to
 MVDV>>> the enemy to look him in the face in order to fight with him.
 
 >> That's certainly *one* definition.

 MVDV>> Hear hear...
 
 > Actually the use of fire-arms *did* constitute a very significant
 > change in the way war was conducted.  I suppose, though, the use
 > of bow-and-arrow *also* was a significant change.  Clouds of
 > arrows aimed in the general direction of the enemy, *also*,
 > did not involve seeing individual faces.

 MVDV> That is true. Yet one could not finish the battle with arrows alone.
 MVDV> One had to go on with the sword and at least see *some* of the enemies
 MVDV> in the face. 

OK ...

 MVDV> Note that in the days of knights in armour, it was custom to approach
 MVDV> the enemy with open visor and only close the visor when the actual
 MVDV> fight began. 

The evolution of warfare isn't one of humanities' proudest 
accomplishments.

... Every morning is the dawn of a new error ...

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