Nelson Mandela facts you won't hear from the Mainstream Press

[logroller]

Is blowing up innocent people a 'good work', Logroller ?

Asked and answered. I said it is when deaths of innocents is unavoidable, such actions are justified if they serve to reduce the number. Same question to you.

[aboutime]

Tyr. I find myself wondering why Jim doesn't just turn, or give his Forum to logroller, and fj?

After all. Between the two of them. Absolutely everyone else; every human being alive, and every member of this forum are not worthy, or eligible to be near, hear, read, or discuss any topic of any kind since Log, and fj are the sole owners of the entirety of worldly knowledge.

Therefore, no other member of the human race is permitted to say, do, read, hear, or think about any topic unless it is first cleared with Log, or fj.

Only they may offer their selfish approval, or stupidity standards they are capable of presenting here.

Just ask either of them how miserable, frustrated, and permanently mentally challenged they are.

IMO...of course.

A second invitation for log, and fj to address. Call it a BUMP.

[Drummond]

I thought we were done both having made our points. However I can not in good conscience ignore this accusation you just made against Churchill. If Churchill's role and actions are not hero worthy then no man 's action ever were IMHO. HE FOUGHT FOR HIS NATION'S SURVIVAL AGAINST ONE OF THE MOST EVIL AND MURDEROUS REGIMES MAN HAS EVER KNOWN (NAZIS).. Yet you dare to equate a murdering terrorist (which Mandela most certainly was) with him!! As nicely as I can do it , I call bullshit on that.
If one had to pick history's top ten greatest leaders of men Churchill would have to be in that list. Mandela would even make it into any top 500 list. Would not even make it into any top million in my book. Perhaps you confuse action with cause amigo. Stone cold murderous action even if it is deemed to support a righteous cause still is stone cold murderous action. A distinction must be made or else any and all murder can be justified! Simply because it allows for those doing the evil and murderous deeds to justify that their cause is a just one! Apply that reasoning and anybody murdering can apply that coverall to justify their act/acts of murder. There can be no such standard set amigo. Not and it ALSO be logical or an act of justice IMHO. -Tyr

Perfect answer, Tyr .. and I couldn't see you leaving that criticism of Winston Churchill unchallenged.

[Drummond]

Asked and answered. I said it is when deaths of innocents is unavoidable, such actions are justified if they serve to reduce the number. Same question to you.

I take it that you've already seen Tyr's answer to you ? Quoting from it:

Stone cold murderous action even if it is deemed to support a righteous cause still is stone cold murderous action. A distinction must be made or else any and all murder can be justified!

You say:

...when deaths of innocents is unavoidable, such actions are justified if they serve to reduce the number.

So, the deaths of innocents can be seen to be 'unavoidable', eh ? Meaning ... that a terrorist just HAS to terrorise, he or she has absolutely no choice in the matter ??

Logroller, you're close - if not actually at the point of - justifying 'any and all murder', are you not ? I do not accept that terrorists HAVE to kill innocent human beings. THEY CHOOSE THEIR SAVAGERY. There is no physical law of nature mandating them to kill. They make their choice. And, Logroller, you will not convince me that the murder of those innocent human beings is 'justified' ... AT ALL.

Tell me what crime any of those innocent human beings had committed, to earn a randomly-applied death sentence !!!

Do you realise that a logical outcome of your argument is to quantify innocent human lives as having insufficient value to even deserve to be lived ??? And for what, to satisfy A TERRORIST CHOICE TO COMMIT MURDER ???

.... so, Tyr's point is validated .. already. Unless of course, Logroller, you're now prepared to concede you are wrong ?

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Perfect answer, Tyr .. and I couldn't see you leaving that criticism of Winston Churchill unchallenged.

I could no more leave that statement unchallenged than I could stand by and watch a helpless innocent person beaten my a far more powerful man . That's the thing here I have never yet explained about a huge portion of my many fights in life. That I did so to defend others. The majority were me defending others incapable of defending themselves. That doesn't make me any better than anybody else but it does make me totally unwilling to ignore such dastardly action. True, I did so greatly enjoy beating the damn bullies. So yes, I am guilty of taking too much pleasure in doing so. My second validation for fighting so much was that it "kept me in shape" for my second job= bouncer. I had no problem finding the bullies every bar and club had at least one some had 5 or 10. I didnt hang out in soft gentle places back then. As my older brother told me -- " but Robert you enjoy it too damn much! That's not healthy "! Only when I GOT MUCH OLDER DID I SEE HE WAS RIGHT. SPILT MILK, NO CORRECTING IT NOW. I lived to talk about it now because somebody up above was looking out for me is all I can figure out. I was not a gentle man back then, at least not like I am now. You know logroller has his point of view on this and I simply disagree. He may see it as logical and commendable so I try not to criticize too harshly in my reply. --Tyr

[logroller]

I thought we were done both having made our points.

you were mistaken. I'll let you know when I'm done.

However I can not in good conscience ignore this accusation you just made against Churchill. If Churchill's role and actions are not hero worthy then no man 's action ever were IMHO. HE FOUGHT FOR HIS NATION'S SURVIVAL AGAINST ONE OF THE MOST EVIL AND MURDEROUS REGIMES MAN HAS EVER KNOWN (NAZIS)

I agree completely.... however, ibid, hell is full of good intentions... So perhaps you should take up the issue with Drummond, the bible or gandhi-- for it is them and their standards which indict Churchill, not me or mine. Once again you've made a strawman and I cannot in good conscience abide by such. You're mistaken to believe that I would.

.. Yet you dare to equate a murdering terrorist (which Mandela most certainly was) with him!! As nicely as I can do it , I call bullshit on that.

Not a dare, 'tis the outcome of your logic sir. I admit its not especially nice to expose the fallacy of your and other's position, but the shit is of your own bull.

Perhaps you confuse action with cause amigo. Stone cold murderous action even if it is deemed to support a righteous cause still is stone cold murderous action.

Such as killing women and children to affect the morale of the nation at large, as Churchill did-- Is that not pretty stone-cold, action-wise?

A distinction must be made or else any and all murder can be justified!

By definition, murder is non justifiable homicide; ergo justified killing is not murder. That's the distinction you fail to accept. You use a presupposition of unjustified homicide to prove it unjustifiable-- its circular reasoning.

Simply because it allows for those doing the evil and murderous deeds to justify that their cause is a just one!

If you want to take the line that all killing is evil then fine, then all war is evil; All killing is unjustifiable and thus murderous and all those who do so are evil murderers worthy of a sub-human label. That's not my position; in fact I have argued repeatedly and consistently against such. Because I know the perils of such and by your own admonition you don't abide by such either. Sorry tyr, you can't have your self-righteous cake and eat it too.

Apply that reasoning and anybody murdering can apply that coverall to justify their act/acts of murder. There can be no such standard set amigo. Not and it ALSO be logical or an act of justice IMHO. -Tyr

I believe I've covered the difference between murder and killing; exposing the logical failures you sense as your own. Applying my standard can justify any number of killings, but certainly not all. The lack of logic is your repeated strawman and circular reasoning. And justice??? By all means, explain to me how one day of mandela's incarceration for sabotage of strategic non-living targets and treason against an evil and insidious institution was justice? Answer that sir without the fallacious rhetorical presupposition of it being unjustified murder or terrorism, if you can.

If you do, I will, under the South African law at the time prove gandhi guilty of terrorism. Indeed, most every member of this board would qualify. Look it up -- the terrorism act of 1967. hitler himself would be proud of such an article. Then tell me again what you would do to resist such without yourself being a 'terrorist'...evil, murderous etc....oh yea, and you're presumed guilty until proven innocent...if you get a trial at all; there's no habeus corpus provision. So scratch that challenge, you're a terrorist tyr, the law says so. Nothing you say can absolve such except rejecting all forms of dissidence, but it's too late for that; once a terrorist...always, right? And the next time you have a party at your house the government is coming in guns blazing-- YOU TERRORISTS MUST BE STOPPED. This is the war on terror and not what I consider just....but then again, if it saves lives...perhaps such is justifiable.

[logroller]

A second invitation for log, and fj to address. Call it a BUMP.

I call it discussion of staff actions, flaming and spam.

[logroller]

I take it that you've already seen Tyr's answer to you ? Quoting from it:



You say:



So, the deaths of innocents can be seen to be 'unavoidable', eh ? Meaning ... that a terrorist just HAS to terrorise, he or she has absolutely no choice in the matter ??

Logroller, you're close - if not actually at the point of - justifying 'any and all murder', are you not ? I do not accept that terrorists HAVE to kill innocent human beings. THEY CHOOSE THEIR SAVAGERY. There is no physical law of nature mandating them to kill. They make their choice. And, Logroller, you will not convince me that the murder of those innocent human beings is 'justified' ... AT ALL.

Tell me what crime any of those innocent human beings had committed, to earn a randomly-applied death sentence !!!

Do you realise that a logical outcome of your argument is to quantify innocent human lives as having insufficient value to even deserve to be lived ??? And for what, to satisfy A TERRORIST CHOICE TO COMMIT MURDER ???

.... so, Tyr's point is validated .. already. Unless of course, Logroller, you're now prepared to concede you are wrong ?

Murder is never justified, it's defined as such. You failed to answer the question. Perhaps it was an oversight of your's, so I'll give you one more chance before I conclude you're a coward.

Question: Is blowing up innocent people a 'good work', Drummond?

[Drummond]

A quick point.

... So perhaps you should take up the issue with Drummond, the bible or gandhi-- for it is them and their standards which indict Churchill, not me or mine.

Letting you know, Logroller, that I in no way regard Churchill as other than a war HERO. He was a dedicated opposer of Hitler and the evils Hitler spawned through his Third Reich.

I've already posted elsewhere that Dresden had to be bombed as a strategic target .. since what was located there had its use in Hitler's war effort. If you wish, I'll dig up the evidence a second time.

But rather more offensive is the evident inability you have in separating out warfare from terrorism. To offer just one point for consideration .. Hitler's Reich had to be smashed, defeated, in order to stop its offensive capabilities, themselves deadly. More, the evils perpetrated by that regime had to be stopped themselves.

Ask any Jew whether they appreciate the Allied liberation of concentration and death camps, Logroller. Such liberations were only possible through very sustained military action, itself responsible for many deaths. Ask yourself what would've occurred had Hitler's forces never been militarily opposed as they were.

Churchill's leadership played a major part in Hitler's downfall ... and you criticise CHURCHILL and his actions !!!

I find that as incredible as it is offensive. A 'terrorist' he was NOT .. but instead a stalwart defender of the free world.

[logroller]

A quick point.



Letting you know, Logroller, that I in no way regard Churchill as other than a war HERO. He was a dedicated opposer of Hitler and the evils Hitler spawned through his Third Reich.

I've already posted elsewhere that Dresden had to be bombed as a strategic target .. since what was located there had its use in Hitler's war effort. If you wish, I'll dig up the evidence a second time.

But rather more offensive is the evident inability you have in separating out warfare from terrorism. To offer just one point for consideration .. Hitler's Reich had to be smashed, defeated, in order to stop its offensive capabilities, themselves deadly. More, the evils perpetrated by that regime had to be stopped themselves.

Ask any Jew whether they appreciate the Allied liberation of concentration and death camps, Logroller. Such liberations were only possible through very sustained military action, itself responsible for many deaths. Ask yourself what would've occurred had Hitler's forces never been militarily opposed as they were.

Churchill's leadership played a major part in Hitler's downfall ... and you criticise CHURCHILL and his actions !!!

I find that as incredible as it is offensive. A 'terrorist' he was NOT .. but instead a stalwart defender of the free world.

Is that your answer? Was that a yes?

[Drummond]

Murder is never justified, it's defined as such. You failed to answer the question. Perhaps it was an oversight of your's, so I'll give you one more chance before I conclude you're a coward.

Question: Is blowing up innocent people a 'good work', Drummond?

'Thank you' for your suggestion that I may be a 'coward', Logroller. You are not the only contributor on this forum who stoops to contentious personalised tactics in the hope of gaining leverage.

Answering your question: you omit the issue of INTENT. In warfare, the deaths of innocents is not an outright intention (... unless you happen to be comparable to bad figures, such as Hitler). However - where terrorists and terrorism is concerned, such an intention is sought after, and thoroughly intended. It is invariably central to their aims.

An INTENDED act of blowing up innocent people, as themselves sought-after targets, is not a 'good work'. But since, in warfare, you cannot deploy bombs or missiles which only blow up the 'guilty', innocent lives have to be accepted as likely to die along with others.

It's either that, or surrender to an aggressor force. That aggressor will in any case be likely to kill innocents, and plenty of them, if permitted a victory. Again, think 'Third Reich' for a good example of that.

Warfare has complications which terrorism does not. Terrorists care specifically about killing and maiming innocent people. It is their focus.

And defenders of terrorists, whether it's their outright intention to or not, defend THIS.

[Drummond]

Is that your answer? Was that a yes?

It is a 'Yes'. Churchill was indeed a stalwart defender of the free world.

[logroller]

Murder is never justified, it's defined as such. You failed to answer the question. Perhaps it was an oversight of your's, so I'll give you one more chance before I conclude you're a coward.

Question: Is blowing up innocent people a 'good work', Drummond?

That's the question you coward.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

you were mistaken. I'll let you know when I'm done. .

That is a right fine stand. I believe I nicely let you know I am done and had made my points on the subject and I see no need to keep repeating those points. Carry on as you like doesn't matter to me. Call me a coward too if you feel like it. Obvious to me somebody has decided to get personal over this subject. Why I haven't a clue. I will say this , Drummond is by no means a coward. I'd take him in my corner in a serious fight anytime. I dare say that I am somewhat of a very good judge of courage and honor. He sir, has both with excess to spare. Fact.. -Tyr

[Drummond]

That is a right fine stand. I believe I nicely let you know I am done and had made my points on the subject and I see no need to keep repeating those points. Carry on as you like doesn't matter to me. Call me a coward too if you feel like it. Obvious to me somebody has decided to get personal over this subject. Why I haven't a clue. I will say this , Drummond is by no means a coward. I'd take him in my corner in a serious fight anytime. I dare say that I am somewhat of a very good judge of courage and honor. He sir, has both with excess to spare. Fact.. -Tyr

Many thanks, Tyr ! Much appreciated.

You know that your opposition is as desperate as it is disreputable when it has to resort to such depths in order to hope to win a debate.