Text 21056, 99 rader
Skriven 2006-01-05 14:53:34 av Peter Knapper (3:772/1.0)
  Kommentar till text 20935 av Frank Scheidt (1:123/140)
Ärende: Lack of Gratitude
=========================
Hi Frank,

 PK> Its more that your simple statements such as "our 
 PK> actions are just" is
 PK> not really an answer to the question. If your actions were just, you
 PK> would be able to qualify that justification, and 
 FS> so far there has been
 PK> none. At least no justificatins that I can take as being a
 PK> justification... 

 FS> I *repeat*:  What questions have I ignored?

And I repeat, your statements are often NOT an answer to the question. I do not
have a large message base to quote from (as this is my point), however a
question such as "How do you justify the actions that were taken?" would be
responded to with something like "Our actions were just..." and little more.
Thats not exactly an answer that leads to any credibility.


And the following part is another example, 

 PK> Have you considered that others do not see it the same way as you?
 FS>  
 FS> I *know* they don't see it properly 
 FS>  
 PK> That is not an answer to the question, I didnt ask if they saw it
 PK> "properly", I asked if you had considered that 
 PK> they did not see it the
 PK> same way as you. Your answer is effectively an 
 PK> admission that you have
 PK> been brainwashed into responding with a position that is in conflict
 PK> with your own thoughts. Now that is spooky...
 FS>  
 FS> It seems to me you're easily spooked ... [sigh] ... as for my 
 FS> being "brainwashed", you'll never see the day *that* takes place.  

 PK> Thats probably true, I am guessing that I would not have been born
 PK> then.......;-)

 FS> Since you *obviously* have been born that supports my statement.

You really missed that one didn't you......;-) My last line was a suggestion
that your brainwashing took place before I was born...

Also note that you have still not answered the first question -

 PK> Have you considered that others do not see it the same way as you?

Your "glib" replies make one wonder why you are trying to avoid a direct
response. It also comes back to what I said before, that your apparent one-eyed
approach leaves questions in the minds of others, as if you are trying to hide
something. This approach simply makes people want to ask more... 


 PK> I DO have an issue if that defense extends to
 PK> invading other countries in an action unrelated to that defense.
 FS>  
 FS> Are you claiming Bush didn't have good reason to believe Saddam 
 FS> Hussein was a danger to us?

Well done, you finally were able to rationalise the question that many have
been asking for the last year or 2. The answer is YES. That is EXACTLY what the
rest of the world has been wondering about the entire Iraq debacle.


 PK> Well if you want people to believe your "facts", then then you need to
 PK> be able to demonstrate the truth in those "facts", and that seems to be
 PK> teh part yo are strugling with. Simply saying it is no basis for
 PK> convincing others you are right.

 FS> OK, which fact do you question?  

Well yes there are many, but let us start with something that goes back to the
root of the discussion. For some time you have been stating that the attack on
Iraq was "just". The line above that reads -

 FS> Are you claiming Bush didn't have good reason to believe Saddam 
 FS> Hussein was a danger to us?

leaves many of us wondering how you quantify "just". No WOMD, no Chemical
Weapon stocks were found, very little of substance at all (other than old
closed sites that COULD have been used for this). Now these were the stated
reasons for the action, and yet almost nothing was found at all. Some of those
in the US that provided the "erroneous" information have been purged, however
it seems things are stil not sorted completely, because fingers have been
pointing at others for "incorrent" intepretations, and yet the worrying part is
that GWB is backing off a bit in some of this claims. 

If he had been fed false info, then he would have hung, drawn and quatered the
guilty parties. Instead he seems to be taking a softer type approach. Perhaps
he had a finger in the "errorneous" pie as well...

I will continue this reply in new message.

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


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