Text 20662, 254 rader
Skriven 2006-01-01 07:30:00 av FRANK SCHEIDT (1:123/140)
     Kommentar till en text av PETER KNAPPER
Ärende: [1/2] Lack of Gratitude
===============================
 >>> Part 1 of 2...

-=> Quoting Peter Knapper to Frank Scheidt <=-

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

But they're *not* "the same action".  The US is defending itself 
-- and the rest of the civilized world.  The terrorists are 
simply evil murderers ... that's a big difference.
 
 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!

 PK> So are you now suggesting that the USA didnt really know what they
 PK> were getting into? That doesn't sound like a logical thinker to me...
 
Whom are you accusing of being illogical, me or the US 
leadership?
 
 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?  

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

But you are comparing them to the suicide/bombing terrorists!

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

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

We *haven't* declared war on Iraq and I don't understand why we 
didn't.  We also didn't declare war on Afghanistan and we should 
have.  The Congress doesn't seem to be doing its job!  Nevertheless 
the two wars were fully justified.
 
 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.

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

It is not *I* who is in denial.  For example you refer to the WTC 
bombing as being a "re-action".  Obviously it was not. Hence you 
should reassess your thinking. 
 
 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 ...

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

The difference was that the WTC bombing was merely a murderous 
attack on a large group of people in *peacetime* -- people who 
were totally innocent.  The bombing of Hiroshima was done to end 
a war -- started by that enemy -- and ended by us.  The bombing 
of Hiroshima saved a million lives.  The bombing of the WTC 
merely murdered thousands ... I presume you see the difference 
now.  BTW, didn't you even note it was not the Japanese who 
bombed the WTC?

 PK> As a military based person, one of the bigest advantages you can hold
 PK> is simply "knowing your enemy". In the US "war on terror" the USA have
 PK> continuously demonstrated one thing, that they have fallen short of
 PK> that mark, they simply don't seem to KNOW the enemy, they may think
 PK> they do, but so far the "enemy" has been able to stay pretty much at
 PK> arms length at all times. 
 
That's because the enemy this time is so cowardly they'll not 
face our troops directly.  But, no matter, we're gradually 
killing all of them, aside from those who blow themselves up, of 
course.

 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. 

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

Excellent question!  Obviously nothing *logical* drives them, but 
what does?  No one knows.  Most consider them insane but you 
apparently don't.
 
 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.
 
Ha!  It is not *I* who seem to be having problems here!

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

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

The problem is that we are dealing with a group of fanatics, 
people who mistakenly believe they're accomplishing something 
worthwhile by murdering innocent men, women and children.  BTW, 
I'm merely assuming that's what they believe since no one can 
really know what goes on in the mind of the psychotic ... 
 
 PK> Would you deny someone else as having different beliefs to yourself?  PK>
 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. 

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

We fully understand they are fanatics who, for no apparent 
reason, want to kill innocent people.  Hence we *do* understand 
them.
 
 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?

 PK> The difference is that I don't think that way, its your "logic" that
 PK> seems to fit them to that label. The same was I see the 911 attackers
 PK> are being quite logical, while you see them as being stupid idiots... I
 PK> am sure they are many  100,000's of Japanese who thought the dropping
 PK> of the A bomb was "cruel and stupid" (your words above). Do you not see
 PK> teh simliarities there? 
 
I see no similarities, other than the fact that people died in 
both cases.  The Hiroshima deaths, of course, were the direct 
result of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.  The WTC bombings, 
OTOH, were simply the result of murderers fanaticism.

 PK> Now my thinkig is that all these attackers MUST have been intelligent
 PK> thinking people, so I would never label any of them as "stupid idiots"
 PK> or "dumb".  
 
OK, let's just call them *evil* then.  I'm sure we can agree on 
that for only *evil* men will kill innocent people ...
 
 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).

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

If you see no difference between the fully-justified bombing of 
an enemy target in wartime and the murder of innocent people in 
peacetime then I think you had better re-assess your position.
 
 FS> Possibly since I tend to think objectively and rationally ...
 
 PK> I think I would classify your thinking another way.........;-)
 
 FS> Oh?  How.  

 PK> Well at the risk of offending you, you seem to have beliefs and
 PK> thinking that is just as fanatical (IE not objective or rational) as
 PK> these "terrorists" that you talk of, almost to the extent that your
 PK> writing here could be coming from someone who has been brain washed
 PK> into believing something, exactly like your "terrorists".
 
Don't worry about offending me as I'm doing my best to help you 
straighten out your thinking WRT different reasons for killing 
people.  As for my being "brain-washed", that's a laugh!  My 
thinking is obviously both clear and rational.  I oppose murder 
and believe murderers should be punished.  What's wrong with 
that?
 
 FS> I have demonstrated my objectivity and am obviously a 
 FS> very rational person.  

 PK> Sorry, you have demonstrated no such thing to me. All that you HAVE
 PK> demonstrated to me, is what I have said in the paragraph above.
 
In that case I suggest you re-read what I've said and *think* 
about it.

 FS> So what's your thinking?  

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

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

 FS> Maybe I can help you clarify your thoughts.

 >>> Continued to next message...

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