Text 20589, 188 rader
Skriven 2006-01-01 07:22:24 av Peter Knapper (3:772/1.0)
  Kommentar till text 20525 av Frank Scheidt (1:123/140)
Ärende: Lack of Gratitude
=========================
Hi Frank,

 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 ... 

Oh the concepts really are there, and others see them too, but it appears that
you have 2 ways of viewing the same action. If it is being done BY the USA,
then the USA is saving the world, however if the same thing is being done TO
the USA, then its being done by terrorists. 


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

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

So are you now suggesting that the USA didnt really know what they were getting
into? That doesn't sound like a logical thinker to me...


 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" 
 PK> 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 
 PK> just the difference
 PK> you are demonstrating by not weighing the data using equal values...

 FS> Huh?  The crew of the Enola Gay didn't commit suicide did they?  

The method chosen to deliver the weapon has nothing to do with the result of
that delivery, the effect was the same, even if the scale was quite different.

 FS> They were serving a worthy cause as they dropped those bombs on 
 FS> military targets during wartime.  

So when did the USA declare war on Iraq? They didn't! Who is acting like the
terrorist now? 

 FS> There's no comparison between 
 FS> their noble act and the murderous activities of the WTC bombers 
 FS> who deliberately murdered innocent people during peacetime.

The "problem" here is that you are failing to acknowledge that there is an
EXACT relationship between the actions by the USA, and re-actions by those they
attacked. Denial is not surving you well Frank.


 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> There was no fanaticism whatsoever in the bombing of Hiroshima -- 
 FS> merely a desire to save a million lives ...

By killing thousands of people. So where is the dfference with the WTC attack? 

As a military based person, one of the bigest advantages you can hold is simply
"knowing your enemy". In the US "war on terror" the USA have continuously
demonstrated one thing, that they have fallen short of that mark, they simply
don't seem to KNOW the enemy, they may think they do, but so far the "enemy"
has been able to stay pretty much at arms length at all times.


 PK> The reality is Frank that you need to re-appraise the other 
 PK> possible scenarios if you want to understand what drives 
 PK> these people.

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

Ok, so what is it that drives them then? What are they fighting for?


 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.

 FS> A dictionary defines "rational", and that's what's being 
 FS> discussed here ...

But it does not describe THE BELIEFS, IE what is the basis for the rational
thinking. Its that core to their thinking that you HAVE to understand, to be
able to effectively attack the enemy. That is why the USA is having such a hard
time trying to win that battle, they are finding it very difficult to get to
the root of the problem.


 PK> Would you deny someone else as having different beliefs to yourself?  PK>
If so then it is YOUR thinking that is totally unwarranted.

 FS> Hardly.  My thinking is straight-forward and based on clear 
 FS> logic. 

Well so far you have failed to demonstrate how that Logic is applicable to the
sitiuation, because the "logic" is missing any understanding of your opponent.


 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.

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

The difference is that I don't think that way, its your "logic" that seems to
fit them to that label. The same was I see the 911 attackers are being quite
logical, while you see them as being stupid idiots... I am sure they are many 
100,000's of Japanese who thought the dropping of the A bomb was "cruel and
stupid" (your words above). Do you not see teh simliarities there?

Now my thinkig is that all these attackers MUST have been intelligent thinking
people, so I would never label any of them as "stupid idiots" or "dumb". 



 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...

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

Because there ARE no differences! They are BOTH exactly the same members of
forces that are involved in a form of "War", declared or not, the exact same
way GWB talks about a "War on Terrorism". What war, there is no DECLARED war at
all, its simply a belief that has been stated by ONE person.


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

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

 FS> Oh?  How.  

Well at the risk of offending you, you seem to have beliefs and thinking that
is just as fanatical (IE not objective or rational) as these "terrorists" that
you talk of, almost to the extent that your writing here could be coming from
someone who has been brain washed into believing something, exactly like your
"terrorists".


 FS> I have demonstrated my objectivity and am obviously a 
 FS> very rational person.  

Sorry, you have demonstrated no such thing to me. All that you HAVE
demonstrated to me, is what I have said in the paragraph above.


 FS> So what's your thinking?  

Ok, in a nutshell. The 911 attack was a DIRECT response to PREVIOUS actions by
the USA towards a group that the USA calls (rightly or wrongly, my jury is
still out on that) "Terrorists". When the USA entered Iraq they did not declare
war, nor did they have any backing from the UN for that action. If anything,
the USA actions here are an EXACT comparison to the "Terrorism" claims by the
USA.

I also think that none of this is related to the USA wanting to do "good" for
other people in the world, it is simply taking place because commercial
interests in the USA want to make more money out of the action, and the USA
feels it needs to demonstrate it still has some "power" over other nations. 

 FS> Maybe I can help you clarify your thoughts.

I seriously doubt that, but thank you for your thoughts.........;-)

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


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