From: "John Foster" <borealis-AT-mercuryspeed.com>
Subject: Re: interPolltation
Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2003 07:30:52 -0700




> >Aside from the partial results of this poll then, what 3 or 4 reasons do
> >you
> >justify mass murder and infanticide on?

Anthony:
> "Murder" and "infanticide" imply more circumstances than simply the death
of
> people and children, since if you are going to say that any action which
> results in the death of people and children is immoral, then absolutely no
> war would be morally permissible, offensive or defensive. Is that what you
> wish to say?

Are you implying that the bereaved believe the homical acts (genocidal
infanticide) of the US was well worth it because of the partial results of a
poll?

Here is is the justification again. Your fabulous partial poll results:
> The point is that since the same people who say that it is more dangerous
> also say that this very same danger was WORTH it (given what would have
been
> the alternative), then it is absolutely hilarious that you keep citing it.

So you are agreeing that homicide and infanticide on this scale were
justified based on partial results of a poll. IF your criterion for the
acceptability of mass murder is a poll, then all acts of mass homicide that
the US carries out, and if a poll supports it, is morally acceptable to you,
as you have announced every time a poll supports your belief that murder is
an acceptable act of the US (but no other entity).

> >Then what were you saying then? Principles are principles, 'arche', what
do
> >you think they are are copies? or what?

Anthony:
> Please cite where I said that I said or suggested that I agreed with
Hobbes,
> when what I was explicitly talking about was Strauss' INTERPRETATION of
> Hobbes. You went from that to presuming that I agreed with Hobbes, for no
> reason whatsoever.

Sorry. I  presume that what ever you say  is something I will never
understand, and that presumption is consistent with other commentators who
read your missives on this list. When has Rene, Michael P., Kenneth, and
others found an agreement with anything you say?

For instance you recently stated that I make the same mistakes as all
"undergraduate philosophy students".

The utter meaningless of this kind of statement is not even funny. Here is
what you are saying:

"I know all undergraduate students, they all make the same mistake, and
you - referring to myself (along with all your interlocutors on this
ist)  - are making a mistake."

If there ever was a faulty presumption (and premise) in an inference, then
you have made it clear here. This is not a mistake that all undergraduate
students make, it is a mistake that all pre-schoolers, nay toddlers make
(who I might add can be egocentric and narccistic).

Anthony:
> Please cite anything I wrote whatsoever
> which even remotely suggested that mitsein is a euphemism for war,
conflict,
> and strife, when what I always said that both being at war AND being at
> peace are ways of being-with.

You just did it again. Here is what you just said:

"....what I *always* said that both being at war AND being at peace are ways
of being-with."

You just indicated that War is a way of 'being-with' and thus mitsein is an
euphemism for war. You have said there is no difference between war and
peace, and there is no difference between war and mitsein, since they are
ways of being-with.

However war is not an 'encounter' rather it is a 'counter' and is thus not a
"way of being with". War is being against. War is being-against, whereas
peace is being with, not being-against. Certainly war kills beings who are
not friendly or who are perceived as being less worthy than US citizens. Do
you think Duh Bush would launch cruise missiles into NYC? So who is Duh Bush
being with and who is Duh Bush being against?

Now reflect a moment on what you used as justification for the mass homical
acts of the US in Iraq were:

1.    partial results of a poll;

2.    failure to meet a UN deadline in resolution 1441

Since item #1 was 'after the fact', you must rely on item #2 for
justification of the US lead mitsein in Iraq. Was the mitsein a war or was
it a peace? You seem to agree it was a 'war' since that is the term you have
no problem using to describe the act.

And again, there have been no WMD found in Iraq, so after the fact, only the
wording in 1441 was breached. They did not meet the 30 day deadline, and for
that reason thousands of innocent people had to die, and $50 billion worth
of property was destroyed.

Now there must be a reason for the US engaging in a mass homicide in the
first place, right? No one is absolutely sure what that reason is. You
mentioned the 2 items, but you have failed to supply an initital reason for
the mass homicidal act this year.

So what you are saying is that the US can go in and kill people where ever
it chooses to - as long as the US Congress approves. The current US
Administration does not need a cogent reason to kill people who are not US
citizens. It can make them up like the CIA has done as a joke - false
uranium purchases from Niger.

People who fail to pay the mortgage payments on time usually don't lose
their lives soon after.

What you are saying is that the mass homicide is okay when a deadline is
missed. Funny thing is that this resolution was not the only one resolution
which Iraq was obliged, and it was not the first one which was missed in
terms of deadlines.

You are dead, Uncle Sam Said!

Anthony:
> And YES.... "FOR PURPOSES NOT RELATED TO WEAPON PRODUCTION OR
> MATERIAL".

Just like you say above, Uncle Sam, Duh Bush, wants something very much in
Iraq, and that is the oil, which could be worth trillions of US dollars.

That sums up the final reasons for all the flag sucking down there....

jf







     --- from list heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---