Text 20823, 138 rader
Skriven 2006-01-02 23:05:00 av FRANK SCHEIDT (1:123/140)
     Kommentar till en text av PETER KNAPPER
Ärende: [1/2] Lack of Gratitude
===============================
-=> Quoting Peter Knapper to Frank Scheidt <=-

 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  PK>
 PK> being done BY the USA, then the USA is saving the world, however 
 PK> if the same thing is being done TO the USA, then its being done 
 PK> by terrorists. 
 
 FS> But they're *not* "the same action".  The US is defending itself 
 FS> -- and the rest of the civilized world.  

 PK> The USA is defending itself by "attacking" a supposed enemy, EXACTLY
 PK> the same as the "Terrorists" are defending thjemselves by attacking the
 PK> USA. 

A "supposed" enemy?  Don't you consider the murderous 
"insurgents" in Iraq to be a real enemy?  The Terrorists are just 
that, Terrorists who commit inhuman acts.

 PK> And consider that no part of the "civilised world" requested this
 PK> action from the USA, so dont try and drag the rest of us into your
 PK> actions. 
 
But it's in your own interest that we *act* by trying to save the 
world from the terrorists ...

 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...
 
 FS> Whom are you accusing of being illogical, me or the US leadership?

 PK> I would have expected any logical thinker to userstand the phrase
 PK> "that the USA didn't..." means exactly that, the USA government, and
 PK> not yourself. 

I am part of the US.  I voted for the gummint now in power.
 
 PK> The method chosen to deliver the weapon has nothing to do with the
 PK> result of that delivery, the effect was the same, 
 PK> even if the scale was quite different. 
 
 FS> But you are comparing them to the suicide/bombing terrorists!

 PK> I was comparig one attack with another... that is all.

Nevertheless the implication was clearly there ...
 
 PK> So when did the USA declare war on Iraq? They didn't! Who is acting
 PK> like the terrorist now? 
 
 FS> We *haven't* declared war on Iraq and I don't understand why we 
 FS> didn't.  We also didn't declare war on Afghanistan and we should 
 FS> have.  The Congress doesn't seem to be doing its job!  

 PK> Thank-you, I was wondering if this point was obvious to others..

It should be obvious?  It's been pointed out often enough.  The 
Congress must declare war for a true war to exist.  That's 
according to our constitution.  Maybe the Congress has declared 
a war *secretly*.  I don't know. 
 
 FS> Nevertheless the two wars were fully justified.

 PK> They can't be "wars" if they were undeclared...
 
The term war here is used in the same common way as in LBJ's "War 
on Poverty" or Ford's "War on Inflation" simply meaning an 
extraordinarily vigorous action -- but not a real *war*.
 
 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> What peacetime? Your "terrorists" had already called their actions a
 PK> "Holly war" against the USA. That sounds like a declaration to me...
 
Huh?  There *is* no such thing as a "holy war".  That's pure 
nonsense!
 
 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.
 
 FS> It is not *I* who is in denial.  For example you refer to the WTC 
 FS> bombing as being a "re-action".  Obviously it was not. 

 PK> But you are still very much in denial regarding the previous actions
 PK> by the USA as being a cause for 911. To be able to understand that you
 PK> have to look at the actions from the perspective of the "other side".
 
*Nothing* the US has done justified the murders of 3,000 
innocent people -- especially during peacetime!
 
 FS> Hence you should reassess your thinking. 

 PK> Pot... kettle...
 
You're mumbling again ... [sigh] ...

 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 
 PK> dfference with the WTC attack?  

I'll explain it again, in very simple terms.  Please pay 
attention this time.

Hiroshima bombing:  Wartime ... done to save a million lives
WTC bombing:  Peacetime ... done out of insane (fanatic) 
viciousness by murderers ...

See the difference now?
 
 FS> The difference was that the WTC bombing was merely a murderous 
 FS> attack on a large group of people in *peacetime* -- people who 
 FS> were totally innocent.  

 PK> What peacetime? A "Holy war" had already been declared, several times
 PK> over... 

There *is* no such thing as a "holy war".

 PK> Until you can acknowledge all these events and look at them from a
 PK> balanced perspective, you will simply be uable to rationalise the USA
 PK> actions that you are attemping to rationalise. The very first part of
 PK> that task is to acknowledge that others have a right to live their
 PK> lives they way they wish to live them, without anyone (including the
 PK> USA) trying to impose their will on them.

I don't think it's that simple.  What happened is this:  Those 
people *attacked* us!  We are now defending ourselves ...

... "It's bad luck to kill someone before your wedding." ÄÄ anon.

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