Replying to LO30110 --
I have similar feelings to yours, Alan, about the choice of words, such as
'evil' etc. They make me feel a bit uncomfortable. On the other hand,
Sadam wins the 20th century prize for 'most Muslims killed,' at somewhere
north of 1 million, including the war with Iran, war with Kuwait, and then
his own citizens to make up the final gap.
When I think of 1 million Muslims, I wonder if Sadam is the all-time
record-holder for individual responsibility. However, I can not determine
the answer to that question one way or another. At some point
substantially less than 1 million it becomes irrelevant. I am comfortable
that 'evil' does apply in this case.
It is sort of an interesting side note that Europeans killed in the area
of 20 million Indians in the New World. But the vast majority -- probably
95% -- of those were killed inadvertantly by disease, not by murder.
Some may claim that Europeans were 'evil' in their conquest of the New
World. Personally I would distinguish that no one individual set out to
kill millions, but I am sympathetic to anyone who holds the other point of
>I wouldn't say the US is as paranoid as it was during the 'cold war'.
>Back then we had two or three very paranoid superpowers, who exploited
>paranoia to the utmost.
>What disturbs me is the use of the word 'evil' where, I suggest the word
>'insanity' is probably more appropriate. Also the reversion to
>religeous based 'morals', where a scientific based 'ethics' is more
>Are we reverting to a situation where 'my religeon is better than yours'
"Rol Fessenden" <email@example.com>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <Richard@Karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>
"Learning-org" and the format of our message identifiers (LO1234, etc.) are trademarks of Richard Karash.