Text 18660, 150 rader
Skriven 2005-12-14 13:01:01 av Michiel van der Vlist (2:280/5555)
  Kommentar till text 18644 av FRANK SCHEIDT (1:123/140)
Ärende: [2/2] Sociopaths!
=========================
 >>> 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!

Did I say that? Don't think so. I just gave you a way to the knowledge you said
you didn't have.

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

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

The majority of the dead were not considered innocent by him. (Atta)

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

Note what you wote above, it will come back later...

 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] ...

IOW, you painted yourself into a corner. One point for me!

 >> "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 ...

It is not me "suddenly" bringing uo Arabs. It was *you* that introduced killing
Arabs into the thread. Let me quour you again:

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

[..]

 >> 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...

Well better reconsider what or who the attack was against. Would you deny that
it was against the US?

[..]

 >>> 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
 MVDV>>> when it suits 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*
 MVDV>> it was a UN action...

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

Let me give yoiu a quote from someone you consider an objective man:

 > As Ralph Waldo Emerson once wisely observed, "A foolish
 > consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." ... [sigh] ...

[..]

 >>> 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.

Oops, you got me there. The mixup is mine...

 > 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?

No, I just mixed uo the names.

 >>> 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

You are an old man stuck in outdated concepts.

 > ... as well as all reasonable people, of course ...

Here we go again... "Reasonable" by who's standard?

 >> 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.

Eh? It has been stated over and over again. You are spreading false information
again....

 > 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?

No, because what you claim is not true. GWB said: There are WMD's is Iraq, we
have proof." That was the lie he is accused of.


Cheers, Michiel

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