An Article in the Paper

[wildcat]

You can't know that (unless of course you have priviledged access to parallel dimensions ) You can only *assume* those things. And maybe you're right, but maybe you're wrong. So you can't use those assumptions to judge the actions of the revolutionaries a posteriori.


That's not logical. Why would anyone put themselves into such danger as is inherent in treason, if they had only themselves in mind? Wouldn't logic dictate that they would instead choose the path of least danger?

Maybe the fate of the American Indians would have been better under the British Crown.
I do not know. It is just a thought.
The Indians had already started in integrate. Actually, they did integrate in Oklahoma.
France could have become a constitutional monarchy, no different from England. The Napoleonic wars opened the door to nationalism and the subsequent World Wars.

The traitor I had in mind has never put himself in danger or jeopardy. He is protected.

 

[wildcat]

Oh, ok. *sigh*



Unfortunately, not because I understand Finnish (it was in English in my search).
It must be your browser settings, you might have selected Finnish as preferred language. Or you have set Google preferences so.

Of course. It was silly of me to ask.

The name would not have told you anything. The name is known only in special circles. He is a former member in the government of his country.

 

[lastrailway]

Of course. It was silly of me to ask.

The name would not have told you anything. The name is known only in special circles. He is a former member in the government of his country.

I forget about the browser settings all the time, too - I typically get surprised each time I handle a computer at work.
I asked out of curiosity. It's very possible that the name wouldn't have told me anything.

 

[wildcat]

[QUOTE Wouldn't logic dictate that they would instead choose the path of least danger?[/QUOTE]
Sometimes the career of a traitor is the path of the least danger

 

[wildcat]

So a traitor is selfish and only cares for himself. Cleverness used in his survival... but trying to be too clever and the traitor gets caught. What am I saying? Not too sure... only that the traitor himself knows how guilty he is.


I see what you mean. Two different type of traitors... both started out thinking for their personal gains... One becomes dependent on the system, while the other just use the system. Interesting.


They switch sides don't they because they see themselves as clever? In the beginning, it's about personal gain... cheating the system... but in the end... some realize they're not clever enough afterall.

Yes.
Len Deighton gave a good description of the mind of the traitor in his book Funeral in Berlin.
He also described in detail the mind of the double agent.

Of course, one can become a double agent because of blackmail, too. Blackmail is an inadvisable course of action. The victim will not be clever. He will fail.