[Birgir Thorisson]

"You were not there, preparing to land on the beaches.

But my Father was. "

Mr. O´Connell;

I understand your comment as saying; "you are not entitled to criticize the decisions made there and then, because you were not there."

This is a widespread attitude. It is an argument that is commonly made. It is also an argument that is totally invalid. In fact it is as morally wrong as any argument can be. It is a prime example of the moral relativism, I so strongly condemned.

If you judge history from the perspective of those who were there, "the perpetrators", you will always find that they had their reasons for what the did, and if you surrender your judgment to them, you will have to end up accepting what they did.

If you haven´t read it already, I strongly recommend to you the autobiography of Rudolf Hoess, the commandant of Auschwitz. You should examine the structure of his rationalization, and compare it to the case made in defence of dropping the atomic bomb.

We study history in order to judge.

If not, it is just a hobby, comparable to stamp collection. Harmless pasttime, but of no consequence.

This is mainly a "philatelic website". When serious issues emerge, they tend to be so sensitive that they are quickly shut down, in order not to disturb the "stamp collectors."

There is however a strong undercurrent, especially among the younger users; Adoration of the efficient killer as a hero. (The adulation of Ace-dom). This is confusion of techné and areté. Skill and Virtue, to use the most common translations. "Heroism", of the skillful killer, is a technical attribute, and has no connection to the "justness" of the cause this "hero" fights for. It is therefore a-moral.

This is a problem that seems, from the outside, to be thoroughly confused in modern American culture, so I am not surprised at the stand adobted by you and Mr. DeZeng.

Birgir Thorisson.