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
>> wrote:
>
>>>In fj.life.in-japan C.Brady <ch.brady@comcastremove.net> wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 14:27:31 +0000 (UTC), mtfester@netMAPSONscape.net
>>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>>I simply do not believe the Germans were "victims" in WWII.
>>>>>
>>>>>> 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. Alas, I don't understand your reluctance to consult and/or except
credible sources to help you with your predicament.


>>>Right; for example, it's a "commonly accepted standard" that the Germans
>>>were the victims in WW II is something I willfully dismiss as nonsense
>>>promulgated those who in all likelihood spent a good deal of their
>>>spare time peeling bananas with their feet and picking parasites off
>>>the more dominanant members of their immediate group.
>
>> I wouldn't know, 
>
>Then I suggest you read up on WW II.

Yikes/ And now you're resorting to your customary habit of butchering
quotations. Your reliance upon distortion, misquote, and half-quotes
is indicative of either flagrant ignorance, or deliberate
misinterpretation. Whatever it is, it is an unpleasant and dishonest
debating tactic.

>
>If you can read.

Ouch - another example of your limited repertoire of wit?
Why not stick with your usual custom of just distorting my quotes,
because that's where you really excel.

>
>>>>>If one does not believe one is a victim of one's own deedas, then one
>>>>>deduces that the Germans were not victims, but instigators.
>>>
>>>> I don't subscribe to the notion of collective guilt and collective
>>>
>>>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, I prefer historical perspective as opposed to your
emotional oratories.

>
>> It's always refreshing to see someone
>> dispel the ugly stereotype of the ignorant American. Perhaps the
>
>Well, someone has to clean up after the likes of you.

Please don't confuse _cleaning_ with removing all references/quotes,
which don't support your position. 
>
>> 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.
Morals or ethics are not some interchangeable principle/virtues that
you can manipulate to suit your agenda.  
That's why international law and multilateral treaties impose
civilized restraints irrespective of nationality.

>
>>>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.
Can you distinguish between the subtle nuances of stating
unequivocally that there were no German victims because of WWII, as
opposed to Germans were victims? Apparently not...

>
>> 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
opposed to bombing the smithereens out of innocent civilians, many of
them children who bore no _collective guilt_ whatever.
Your _collective punishment_ fetish is pathological…

>
>>>It is a "commonly accepted standard" that the people who instigate a 
>>>war, then set about systematically exterminating civilians in areas
>>>under their control are not "victims" when a tiny taste of their own
>>>actions are visited upon them.
>
>> Just as there cannot be collective, or group, "rights" different and
>> distinct from the rights belonging to individuals, so there cannot be
>> collective, or group, guilt or responsibility different and distinct
>> from the responsibilities of separate individuals. "
>
>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.
It is you who is peddling all this collective crap.
No, I won't defend a position which I never took; in spite of your
manipulative conniving. Sorry, I reject your pathetic strategy.
Moreover, you're reducing this entire discussion to a level of
absurdity. 
>
>I'm certain you'll ignore that.

Another burst of revelations?
>
>> 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, or better yet, develop some comprehension skills.
>
>> that what started the persecution against innocent people in the first
>> place during WWII?
>
>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...I get a sense that even you have problems
keeping up with your own befuddled positions.
>
>Odd slippery slope you have there...

A concept which has totally escaped you - Oh well....
>
>>>Of course, if you are consistant, you of course believe that a criminal
>>>becomes him/herself a victim when they are punished for their misdeeds.
>>>
>>>Just to clue you in; this is not a "commonly accepted standard"
>>>definition of "victim".
>
>> Selective sniping eh?
>
>No, not sniping: simply pointing out 

Surely, you're not starting to believe your own distortions... 

>
>> 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. BTW, some historians may disagree with
your assessment. In any event, unlike you, I'm not fond of comparative
trivialization. So in spite of your little dance here, the basic
premise remains uncharged: Mass murder of innocent and defenseless
civilians consisting mostly of women and children is a monstrosity
that cannot be rationalized or justified by any civilized person.


>>>>>> Although you may experience some personal discomfort in having to
>>>>>> recognize that many Germans were indeed victims of a fascist political
>>>>>
>>>>>Although you may experience some personal discomfort in having to
>>>>>realize the Germans were indeed the promulgators of a fascist (actually,
>>>>>it wasn't fascist; that was a different nation), you'd be less likely to 
>>>>>find yourself in the silly position of being a nazi apologist.
>
>> LOL,
>
>(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 - on second thought, never mind; your
views no longer merit any serious consideration.  


>> "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..
I guess he never had the pleasure of benefiting from your immense
historical knowledge, to say nothing about your conventional wisdom.
>
>> Reagan further argued that the German people also suffered in the war.
>
>Really?

What part here didn't you understand?
>
>Tell me, who claimed they didn't suffer?

Think about it for a while; It may just dawn on you...
>
>Are you arguing with the little voices in your head?

I might as well. Beats arguing with you.
>
>>>>>Lemme guess; you're going to deny the Holocaust next...
>>>
>>>> Ah, here it comes! Conjecture, supposition, and a vivid 
>>>
>>>Oh, you mean like "he's a typical, America can do no wrong" kinda guy?
>>>
>>>I wonder what kinda lowbrow sub-intellectual started off with something
>>>like that?
>>>
>>>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. This is total nonsense and you know it.
I just wouldn't play along with your silly little game. Now get over
it! 

>Not surprising, of course.

On that we agree.

-C.B.


>
>Mike