In fj.life.in-japan C.Brady <ch.brady@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 04:52:14 +0000 (UTC), mtfester@netMAPSONscape.net
> wrote:

>>In fj.life.in-japan C.Brady <ch.brady@comcast.net> wrote:
>>> On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 05:19:11 +0000 (UTC), mtfester@netMAPSONscape.net

>>>>>>> Merriam-Webster dictionary defines _victim_ as:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>That's nice; so the Germans were victims of the mean  ol' Poles.
>>>>
>>>>> Gee, why confuse you with 'facts'.... 
>>>>
>>>>Right; nasty ol' 'facts' like invading Poland, France, Belgium, Russia,
>>>>etc., are really confusing.
>>
>>> No Mr. Fester, this was about dictionary definitions. Are you still
>>
>>No Mr Brday, this was, and is, about victims.

> Precisely!  Since you are unable to decipher the very meaning of
> victim, I thought a dictionary definition might be of some help to
> you. 

You do not appear to understand that it was the (eg) Poles, Czechs,
Jews, gypsies, Russians (etc) who were victims.

Not the brutes who started it.

>>> I wouldn't know, 
>>
>>Then I suggest you read up on WW II.

> Yikes

Sorry, a low blow.

>>If you can read.

> Ouch

Faint of heart, it seems.

>>>>Sorry, but when nations are involved, that's the way it is. Nations
>>>>declare war against nations. Germany summarily invented reasons to 
>>>>invade a neighbor, then another, then another, swallowing them up, and
>>>>putting their people to the proverbial sword (or bullet, or barb-wire
>>>>fence, or gas-chamber...)
>>
>>> Thanks for the history lessons.
>>
>>No problem. You need more.

> No thanks,

It would render your posts more sensible, though.

>>> lessons would have been even better had they been done with a little
>>> less hand-wringing (pun intended) and self-serving moral posturing.
>>
>>Sorry, but if you feel it's "moral posturing" to look down on aggressive
>>takeovers of one's neighbor's and slaughtering their people, I can see
>>why you are so familiar with the "ugly American" label.

> Only in the sense when moral posturing is selectively applied.

You mean when one doesn't consider the criminal a victim of his own
crimes, this is selective?

Again, you are using non-standard definitions.

Probably the result of your early-onset illiteracy.

> Morals or ethics are not some interchangeable principle/virtues that
> you can manipulate to suit your agenda.  

So, when a  nation invades and butchers the inhabitants of its
neighbors, you must consider the butcher to be a victim, correct?

>>>>Indeed, the Germans were noted for not only national, but racial guilt
>>>>and did something about it. They decided that inferior peoples had
>>>>no rights, and then set several standards of what constituted
>>>>"inferior". Rounding up small children and babies, then gassing them
>>>>just for giggles does not spring to mind as behavior of a 'victim'. You,
>>>>of course, disagree, as does the emotional Ms Schelby (who feels her own
>>>>pain, but nobody else's.)

>>> I don't condone genocide and brutality under any circumstances, and I

>>other to label the perpetrators as "victims".

> Wrong. Once again you're misrepresenting my position.

Sorry, no, I'm quoting you.

> unequivocally that there were no German victims because of WWII, as

I stated, unequivocally, that the Germans were not the victims in WWII.

I fail to see how it has taken you so long to see that, considering that
it is that to which you took exception. YOU and Ms Schelby stated flatly
that the Germans WERE the victims in WWII.

That's preposterous, of course, but that's your position.

>>
>>> suspect neither does Ms. Shelby. I'm still waiting for you to denounce
>>> such atrocities, regardless of ones ethnicity.

>>Sorry, has some other "ethnicity" been introduced into this discussion?
>>Lemme see, well, no, nobody as yet who perpetrated acts anywhere close
>>to the scale of the Germans in WW II.

> Then you punish the individuals responsible for those crimes, as

When you deal with individuals, you punish individuals. When you deal
with nations, you punish nations. A subtle concept, but it's been around
long enough you can be expected to understand it.

>>Ah, then there can be no collective label of "victim", if you are to 
>>believe your own nonsense. Thus, you are refuting your own stance.

> Why do you insist on dismissing a position which I never made.

You deny that there can be no collective label?

Odd, that seems to have been your whole purpose...

>>> You are really going down a slippery slope anytime you want to assign
>>> certain collective attributes to a _group_ of people. After all, isn't
>>
>>Like "victim"?

> Read above, 

I did; you stated flatly there can be no collective label.

Did you misquote yourself?

>>Sorry, but are you now talking about persecution of innocent people by,
>>eg, the Germans? No, no, can't be, because according to you, one cannot 
>>assign responsibility to things like a nation, despite the existance of
>>such things as national laws encoding persecutions.

> You are one confused puppy.

Nope. Unlike you, I haven't had to waver in my position.

>>> Here is my quote: "The principle of complicity is firmly grounded in
>>> individualized justice. It has nothing to do with collective

>>Sorry, we're talking about nations, for such entities initiate wars,
>>support them, and (in the case of Germany) initiate slaughters
>>unparalleled by any modern state.

> Yes, you've already said that. 

And yet it doesn't sink in. Odd, considering most recent history has
been written by the actions nations.

> BTW, some historians may disagree with your assessment. 

As most may disagree with yours.

> premise remains uncharged: Mass murder of innocent and defenseless

Sorry, it's not murder in war under those circumstances. They had (and
have) whole treaties signed by all the nations in questions concerning
the conduct of wars.

Again, not a subtle concept, but one you cannot come to grips with.

>>(I'm always curious about the mental condition requiring one to type in
>>their own laugh track...)
>>
>>> I suspect that Ronald Reagan was a _ Nazi apologist_ as well when
>>
>>Odd; quoting a noted intellectual such as Ronald Reagan...

> Odd..? Are you suggesting that his quotes are irrelevant because they
> don't support your hypothesis

No, just pointing out that Reagan wasn't noted for his intellect.

Which makes him perfect for you, of course.

>>> "It is impossible to determine who was a follower of Hitler and his
>>> ideas and who was merely a conscript.
>>
>>I guess those various trials and nazi purges were all for naught...

> Gee, in that case someone forgot to tell Ronald,/Go figure..

And apparently you missed all that as well.

Go figure.

>>Tell me, who claimed they didn't suffer?

> Think about it for a while; It may just dawn on you...

Must have been you.

I never said the Germans didn't suffer. I said they weren't victims.

Do you speak English?

Stomp your hoof once for "yes".

>>Are you arguing with the little voices in your head?

> I might as well. Beats arguing with you.

There's a chance you might win, dealing with an inferior in that case.

>>>>
>>>>Why, that would be you and Ms Schelby. My, that IS low.
>>
>>> As usual, distortion is your forte, not erudition . 
>>
>>Sorry, but you began by making blanket supposition and conjecture, yet
>>are not man enough to be held to your own words.

> Oh please, spare me the drama. 

Uh, what drama?

Now, be a good troll, and produce a quote where I said the Germans
didn't suffer.

Mike