On Sat, 13 Nov 2004 03:38:59 +0000 (UTC), mtfester@netMAPSONscape.net
wrote:

>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

[...]
>> 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.

Au contraire - I'm well aware of the atrocities and hence suffering
brought on by Nazism. 
>
>Not the brutes who started it.

Gratuitous posturing - I know who started it. 

[...]

>> 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.

Nope, that's your forte
>
>Probably the result of your early-onset illiteracy.

Don't blame me for your lack of comprehension skills.

[...]
>
>>>> 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.

Please produce that quote!
>
>That's preposterous, of course, but that's your position.

Of course it is, especially considering that I never took that
position.

[...]
>
>You deny that there can be no collective label?

No. I suspect that any ideologue can label anything as he/she wishes. 
I on the other hand have the option to dismiss such propositions.

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

Nope, my opposition to the _collective_ thingy is based on the
assumption that millions of individuals could/should not be reduced to
a single agent. Frankly, it also strikes me as a fascist ideology,
hence my previous comment about the slippery slope.    
>
>>>> 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.

Nope, read again. I simply dismiss all claims of collective
responsibility/guilt/punishment as primitive theorization.   
>
>Did you misquote yourself?

Nope, what part here don't you understand? 

>>>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.

Of course you didn't, since you never had a rational position to begin
with.  
>
>>>> 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.

History is always written by the victors, hence not necessarily an
objective and accurate account of historical events. 

>
>> BTW, some historians may disagree with your assessment. 
>
>As most may disagree with yours.

Perhaps, but I'm not the one making such claims.
Meanwhile, you have not provided any evidence to substantiate your
assertion....  
>
>> 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.

CONVENTION WITH RESPECT TO THE LAWS AND CUSTOMS OF WAR ON LAND
The Hague, July 29, 1899
[Ratified by the U.S. Senate on March 14, 1902]

Excerpts: 
ARTICLE XXV

The attack or bombardment of towns, villages, habitations or buildings
which are not defended, is prohibited.

ARTICLE XXVI

The Commander of an attacking force, before commencing a bombardment,
except in case of an assault, should do all he can to warn the
authorities.

ARTICLE XXVII

In sieges and bombardments all necessary steps should be taken to
spare as far as possible edifices devoted to religion, art, science,
and charity, hospitals, and places where the sick and wounded are
collected, provided they are not used at the same time for military
purposes.

The besieged should indicate these buildings or places by some
particular and visible signs, which should previously be notified to
the assailants

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

Read above. It is you who is having difficulty coming to grips with
international law.

Likewise:

Appeal of President Franklin D. Roosevelt on Aerial Bombardment of
Civilian Populations, September 1, 1939

The President of the United States to the Governments of France,
Germany, Italy, Poland and His Britannic Majesty, September 1, 1939

The ruthless bombing from the air of civilians in unfortified centers
of population during the course of the hostilities which have raged in
various quarters of the earth during the past few years, which has
resulted in the maiming and in the death of thousands of defenseless
men, women, and children, has sickened the hearts of every civilized
man and woman, and has profoundly shocked the conscience of humanity.

If resort is had to this form of inhuman barbarism during the period
of the tragic conflagration with which the world is now confronted,
hundreds of thousands of innocent human beings who have no
responsibility for, and who are not even remotely participating in,
the hostilities which have now broken out, will lose their lives. I am
therefore addressing this urgent appeal to every government which may
be engaged in hostilities publicly to affirm its determination that
its armed forces shall in no event, and under no circumstances,
undertake the bombardment from the air of civilian populations or of
unfortified cities, upon the understanding that these same rules of
warfare will be scrupulously observed by all of their opponents. I
request an immediate reply.

 
                                 FRANKLIN D. ROOSEVELT
  


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

I know - Yet he is given credit for ending the cold war. 
>
>Which makes him perfect for you, of course.

No, that made him perfect for American politics.

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

"Using the Dresden soccer stadium as a reference point, over 2000
British Lancasters and American Flying Fortresses dropped loads of
gasoline bombs every 50 square yards out from this marker. The
enormous flame that resulted was eight square miles wide, shooting
smoke three miles high. For the next eighteen hours, regular bombs
were dropped on top of this strange brew. Twenty-five minutes after
the bombing, winds reaching 150 miles-per-hour sucked everything into
the heart of the storm. Because the air became superheated and rushed
upward, the fire lost most of its oxygen, creating tornadoes of flame
that can suck the air right out of human lungs.
 
Seventy percent of the Dresden dead either suffocated or died from
poison gases that turned their bodies green and red. The intense heat
melted some bodies into the pavement like bubblegum, or shrunk them
into three-foot long charred carcasses. Clean-up crews wore rubber
boots to wade through the "human soup" found in nearby caves. In other
cases, the superheated air propelled victims skyward only to come down
in tiny pieces as far as fifteen miles outside Dresden.
People died by the thousands, cooked, incinerated, or suffocated."

Mickey Z,The Seven Deadly Spins

I don't know what spin you're trying to promote, but the above
paragraph clearly indicates that the innocent civilians who died
during terror firebombing were indeed victims.   

Moreover, I find your mental gymnastics boring and repetitive.

>
>Do you speak English?

More examples of your reasoned debating skills...
>
>Stomp your hoof once for "yes".

Can't help you with your bizarre fantasies 
 - Try some Viagra instead and good luck….

>
>>>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.

You're digressing again.
[...]

>> 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.

Yup, you've definitely degenerated into frothing idiocy. 
Now pull yourself together and remember that the object of contention
was _Victim_. Since it was your contention that there were no German
victims, it is YOUR responsibility to a) define victim, b) to justify
your supposition.
Now quit dancing and get to work....

- C.B.

  
>
>Mike