Text 20502, 105 rader
Skriven 2005-12-31 09:11:44 av Peter Knapper (3:772/1.0)
  Kommentar till text 20446 av Frank Scheidt (1:123/140)
Ärende: Lack of Gratitude
=========================
Hi Frank,


 FS> It was the attack on the 
 FS> twin towers by those "fanatics" which eventually *resulted* in 
 FS> our liberation of Iraq.

 PK> Careful, you are now suggestng that the USA deliberately chose to
 PK> liberate Muslim "fanatics"...

 FS> I make no such suggestion.  You read concepts into my statements 
 FS> which are not there ... 

The bulk of the Iraq population is Muslim, and you say Iraq was liberated by
the USA, so the US is libertating Muslims who you say are "insane" or
"fanatics".

I think the issue here is the breadth of the paint brush one is using, not all
Muslims are terrorists.


 PK> I disagree, a fanatic can usually be described as someone who follows
 PK> a strong belief, and that MUST be a logical thought. 

 FS> "Logical"?  It's "logical" to murder 3,000 innocent people -- 
 FS> people who've done *nothing* to you?!?!?

The problem here is that your values of "innocent" and "nothing" needs to be
re-assessed. Consider the first A bomb dropped on Japan in WW2, by your measure
does that not qualify the crew of the aircaft as "fanatics" or "insane"? Of
course not, but that is just the difference you are demonstrating by not
weighing the data using equal values...



 PK> That thought can
 PK> be self made, or it can be implanted by "brain washing", but there is
 PK> no doubt the "fanatic" holds that belief. 

 FS> Merely holding a belief doesn't make it *logical*.

If its a belief, then it MUST be Logical (to them), but your issue seems to be
aound how does one measure the logic for this, and you are trying to base
everyone elses logic on YOUR thinking. The reality is Frank that you need to
re-appraise the other possible scenarios if you want to understand what drives
these people.


 PK> Remember these are all
 PK> rational people that have a belief that is just different to yours.

 FS> "Rational"??   What's your definition of that word?  *I* use the 
 FS> dictionary definition.

A dictionary does nothing to describe anyones beliefs, its those beliefs that
you seem to be having trouble trying to put ito place.


 FS> I agree "fanatics" is a better term.  However they have been 
 FS> brain-washed by someone to get them to do such a *fanatical*, 
 FS> totally unwarranted action.

I see the problem as that YOUR logic and beliefs just happen to be different to
some elses logic and beliefs. Would you deny someone else as having different
beliefs to yourself? If so then it is YOUR thinking that is totally
unwarranted.


 FS> "Intelligent"???  No way!  No one who does something so 
 FS> *obviously* cruel and stupid could be termed "intelligent"

Ok, so according to you the USA was successfully attacked by dumb people,
similar t how teh Abomb was droped by dumb people.

Frank, you need to stop using such a wide brush to paint pictures, you are
missing all the purpose of the picture. People the world over are different, if
you fail to not see and respond to that then you are simply contributing to
your own demise...

 PK> Careful with statements like that, there must be many Muslim kids
 PK> going to American schools...

 FS> I think you know what was meant there ... [sigh] ...

Yes I know what you mean, however this exposes the diferences in the words each
of us use to describe something. Rather than use a 12 inch wide paint brush
everywhere, have you ever tried using a 1 inch wide brush? They are a lot
easier to reach into small places that can make or break the picture...


 FS> That's *beyond* typical "fanaticism" ...

 PK> Not beyond typical fanaticism, but perhaps a form of it that is alien
 PK> to your concepts.

 FS> Possibly since I tend to think objectively and rationally ...

I think I would classify your thinking another way.........;-)


Cheers...........pk.


--- Maximus/2 3.01
 * Origin: === Maxie BBS.  Ak, NZ +64 9 444-0989 === (3:772/1)