Text 21055, 149 rader
Skriven 2006-01-05 13:57:50 av Peter Knapper (3:772/1.0)
  Kommentar till text 20933 av Frank Scheidt (1:123/140)
Ärende: [1/2] Lack of Gratitude
===============================
Hi Frank,

 PK> I consider people who are residents of a country and defending their
 PK> country from invaders to not be insurgents. So far, over 90% of those
 PK> killed in Iraq were citizens of that country. Those people were NOT
 PK> insurgents, and there is no way I would accept that they are simply
 PK> "collateral damage". 

 FS> They have always been *called* "insurgents" in the news.  

Please note, the term "insurgents" has primarily been used by US based news
media. If you ever watched non-USA media reports (BBC, DWTV,  etc...), you will
rarely hear the term "insurgents" used to describe many of the dead, however
you will hear the term "citizens" used frequently instead.

 FS> So what was your *point*.  The Hiroshima attack was clearly 
 FS> justified while the WTC attack was merely large-scale murder.

 PK> And that WAS exactly my point, that you are completely unable to
 PK> rationalise one of the 2 events. 

 FS> The usual meaning of "rationalize" is to use reasoning which is 
 FS> self-satisfying but is not accurate.  Is that what you mean?

Not really... I was trying to point out that almost identical situations were
referenced by yourself as extreme ends of the descriptive scales, IE you seem
to have a really hard time showing balance in your arguments. To me, when
someone appears to not show balance in an argument, then I really feel a need
to question any summation they are trying to do. Its not so much that I
disagree with them, I just like to find out HOW they came to that conclusion. 


 PK> You seem to being living a life with nothing but coins in yor pocket
 PK> with a head, but no tail, and that is a pretty 
 FS> consistant one eyed view
 PK> to me.  

 FS> I live no such life, thus you are wrong *again*!

Again, your logic is failing, it can't be wrong if that is the impression that
I am getting from what you are saying.


 FS> There's a difference between thinking rationally -- as *I* 
 FS> obviously do and to "rationalize their stance".  Think about it.

If a stance cannot be explained rationally, then it cannot be said to be a
rational stance. I DO agree that a person may have dificulty exlaining their
stance, but its darned hard to see how it could be said to be rational if the
person making it cannot provide evidence of the rational thinking that was
required.


 FS> "Balanced"?  Do you mean that I should give equal "credit" to 
 FS> murderers as to patriots?

Equal "credit" for the RATIONAL of their stance, NOT for the actions that
resulted from that stance. Again, if you dont KNOW how your enemy reached a
decsion, then you do not really KNOW your enemy.


 FS> Huh?  There *is* no such thing as a "holy war".  That's pure 
 FS> nonsense! 

 PK> Its not nonsense to those that declared it!

 FS> It's nonsense to the rest of us!  

 PK> I see, if your oponents beliefs do not fit into Frank's view of the
 PK> world, then they must be terrorists. Just how more 
 PK> one-eyed can you get Frank? 

 FS> Did I say that?  

As indicated above, its simply the way you present your "case", it comes out as
so one-sided, that any logical thinker just has to query what you really mean.
If your statements contained details that explained the reason for your
beliefs, then we might have a much easier time tring to understand what you are
saying.



 FS> BTW, do *you* believe in the concept of a "holy war"??

 PK> I have to, because over the centuries there have been so MANY wars,
 PK> all fought in the name of religion. If you do not believe in a Holy
 PK> war, then you do not believe in Religion. Note that I say "Religion",
 PK> NOT "A specific Religion". 

 FS> False premise.  A person can be religious without believing in 
 FS> the false concept of a "holy war".  Perhaps you're thinking of 
 FS> the "just war" concept which *does* exist.

Nope, you missed what I said completely. It seems we are talking about 2
different "Holy" wars. To me, a "holy war" HAS to revolve around a Religion of
some sort. Yes, a person can be religious without believing in a Holy War, but
to enter into a war based on the concept of it being "holy", does require the
person to follow a region of some sort.



 FS> No.  Tell me, which nations have declared war involving the 
 FS> current wave of terrorism?  Be specific, please.

I am not aware of any nation declaring war on that basis. However that does not
mean a war has not been declared. The real problem with this "war on terrorism"
is because one side is "stateless", even when their numbers run across many
states.


 FS> Do you believe everything you see on TV?

 PK> Not everything, but I recall 2 specific events that certainly carried
 PK> some weight regarding this situation -
 PK> 1. International News teams (including American) showed footages
 PK> supposedly from your "insurgents" stating there was a "Holy War",

 FS> Insurgents spout nonsense, then ... name the *nation* which has 
 FS> declared war.  Specifically!   Was it Iran?   Saudi Arabia?  
 FS> Jordan?   Which one?

No State declared war. However, if you consider all the people of El Qaeda to
be a nation then they have declared war.


 PK> then ergo - There really IS a Holy war Frank. 
 PK> Those events carry quite
 PK> a bit more credibility than that presented by a single person in a
 PK> Fidonet Echo. 

 FS> Which nation declared it?  See above ... a single individual, not 
 FS> heading a nation, cannot declare war.

Bin Laden sure did in the video's released. If Bin Laden does not lead, or head
your "terrorist" group, then why are the US so interested in catching him? 


 PK> QED, you cannot even acknowledge that there is another perspective.

 FS> Sure there's another perspective -- as I've pointed out it cannot 
 FS> be explained properly ...

And which party do you think is failing there then...

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


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