Text 20525, 134 rader
Skriven 2005-12-30 22:49:00 av FRANK SCHEIDT (1:123/140)
     Kommentar till en text av PETER KNAPPER
Ärende: Lack of Gratitude
=========================
-=> Quoting Peter Knapper to Frank Scheidt <=-

 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 ... 

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

If any fanatical Muslims were liberated by the US that was *not* 
done deliberately, but was done accidentally.  Big difference 
there!

 PK> I think the issue here is the breadth of the paint brush one is using,
 PK> not all Muslims are terrorists.
 
Of course not ... so?
 
 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?!?!?

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

Huh?  The crew of the Enola Gay didn't commit suicide did they?  
They were serving a worthy cause as they dropped those bombs on 
military targets during wartime.  There's no comparison between 
their noble act and the murderous activities of the WTC bombers 
who deliberately murdered innocent people during peacetime.
 
 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. 
 
There was no fanaticism whatsoever in the bombing of Hiroshima -- 
merely a desire to save a million lives ...

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

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

I don't see that anything logical drives them so we're best off 
just killing them thus eliminating terrorists and making the 
world safer. 
 
 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.

 PK> A dictionary does nothing to describe anyones beliefs, its those
 PK> beliefs that you seem to be having trouble trying to put ito place.
 
A dictionary defines "rational", and that's what's being 
discussed here ...
 
 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.

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

Hardly.  My thinking is straight-forward and based on clear 
logic. 
 
 FS> "Intelligent"???  No way!  No one who does something so 
 FS> *obviously* cruel and stupid could be termed "intelligent"

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

What gives you the idea the crew of the Enola Gay were "dumb"?  
Care to explain?

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

I know they're different and I don't hold mere differences 
against them.  What I'm trying to get across to you is the 
difference between patriots (Enola Gay crew) and murdering 
maniacs (WTC bombers).
 
 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] ...

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

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

Oh?  How.  I have demonstrated my objectivity and am obviously a 
very rational person.  So what's your thinking?  Maybe I can help 
you clarify your thoughts.

... Ever caught yourself *reading* taglines and *skipping* messages?

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