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.

Still confused?

> confused?

>>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.

If you can read.

>>>>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.

> 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.

> 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.

>>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".

> 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.

>>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.

I'm certain you'll ignore that.

> 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"?

> 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.

Odd slippery slope you have there...

>>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 

> 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.

>>>>> 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...

> "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...

> Reagan further argued that the German people also suffered in the war.

Really?

Tell me, who claimed they didn't suffer?

Are you arguing with the little voices in your head?

>>>>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.

Not surprising, of course.

Mike