Afghanistan

Damien Grant's picture
Submitted by Damien Grant on Mon, 2012-08-20 09:44

I have noticed, over the decades, a tendency in the west. I do not have a word for it but it hit me one year in Sydney as I watched a Mardi Gras.

Being Mardi Gras I saw a lot of things that day but one of them as a float with the then Minister of immigration, Phil Ruddock, being mocked and the crowd was all for letting the detainees free.

Why, I wondered, would the crowd want that? Economically it made no sense. Unfettered immigration to Australia would be economically disastrous to the country and completely destroy its unique character. There would be no Mardi Gras for a start.

When I sobered up and washed the glitter from my nether regions the idea was obvious. There is a positive effect experienced by those who are seen as generous, benevolent and kind hearted.

To be so ascribed brings rewards and there are costs in being seen as the opposite.

However, because the decision of setting immigration policy is not up to most people but the cost of being seen as a racist, xenophobe, or simply a mean person is a real cost, the peons watching the Mardi Gras can cheer at the anti-Ruddock float, gain the benefit of his firm stance of drowning queue jumpers also yet gain the benefits of being seen to oppose his policies.

I even modelled it economically.

The same, I think is true of Afghanistan. There is no cost to those who wish to be seen as believing in Peace, the costs of our withdrawal or defeat are not experienced by them, the individual risks of a terrorist attack are low and uncertain but the costs of supporting a difficult war is felt directly by those who wish to make a stand.

In New Zealand, we can ‘take a stand’, be anti-nuclear, protest US aggression, blah, blah, confident in the knowledge that we are being kept safe from the jihadists by the very people that we chant against.

It annoys me.


Well that would narrow the

Richard Wiig's picture

Well that would narrow the death list quite dramaticially.

That's a very big assumption to make, especially in light of the "Arab spring".

goodies and baddies

Damien Grant's picture

I am not alone in that!

Yes

gregster's picture

"For the record, I am mostly opposed to all foreign aid."

We guessed that long ago. You can't tell the baddies from the goodies.

war on Islamic supremacism

Damien Grant's picture

Well that would narrow the death list quite dramaticially.

For the record, I am mostly opposed to all foreign aid.

Your question would be worth

Richard Wiig's picture

Your question would be worth answering if it was sincere, but it clearly isn't, as evidenced by the absence of any answer to my questions. You make a nice list of countries, but each addition to your list is an evasion on your part. Our enemy largely transcends nation states. A More appropriate name than the "war on terror" would be "war on Islamic supremacism". No liberty loving Muslim could complain about that, in fact, they would on side of it. Anyone opposing it would be showing their true colors.

And for the record, you complete idiot, foreign aid is mostly done for politicial reasons.

I know. It's called, buying friends. I'm not against aid, such as military aid, for true friends (Israel is one), but am against pouring money down black holes when it does nothing whatsoever to strengthen our position.

war

Damien Grant's picture

War has already been declared on us, so we either meet it or we submit. That's your two options. Dealing with the Islamic threat doesn't take lots of guns or resources. Withdrawing foreign aid is one simple example that would cost us little but them a lot.

Who has declared war, Richard? Has Jordan declared war, Morocco, Algeria, Indonesia, Malaysia, Nigeria, Bangladesh, Egypt, Turkey, Algeria, Morocco, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Niger, Burkina Faso, Mali, Senegal, Tunisia, Guinea, Azerbaijan, Tajikistan, Sierra Leone, Libya, United Arab Emirates, Kyrgyzstan, Turkmenistan, Chad, Kuwait, Albania, Mauritania, Oman, Kosovo, Bahrain, Brunei, Maldives?

That is a lot of countries we are going to have to fight, most of them give us no trouble, buy western products, keep to themselves, allow tourists. And you are saying we are at war with them. Brunei? Fuck me Richard, you really think that we face a threat from Brunei?

And for the record, you complete idiot, foreign aid is mostly done for politicial reasons. Cut it off and it will be replaced by Chinese aid, and I really do not think Saudi needs our foreign aid, by the way.

facts, Richard, Facts

Damien Grant's picture

Damien: Western society is more violent than Islamic ones if you count the dead.

Richard: That line is certainly dismissive.

Justify this dismissal. It seems obvious to me that a tightly controlled religious society will be less violent than an open democratic one and the evidence, in terms of the murder rate, support this view and my personal experiences of travelling in the region likewise.

I think you have a mental picture of Arabic countries that is far removed from the reality.

The War

Richard Wiig's picture

Should be against those who want to kill us.

That is too narrow. Who are those who want to kill us? Is killing us all they want to do? What are they fighting for? How do they aim to achieve what they're fighting for?

If you declare war on Islam you are going to do two things. First, waste a lot of resources attacking and defending against muslims who wish us no harm; that would be most of them.

War has already been declared on us, so we either meet it or we submit. That's your two options. Dealing with the Islamic threat doesn't take lots of guns or resources. Withdrawing foreign aid is one simple example that would cost us little but them a lot.


Second, you will drive these non combatants into the waiting arms of the enemy.

Let any muslim who chooses Sharia over liberty go. Hammer them when they get there. If they rush off to defend their totalitarian brothers, then they're hardly the benign force you claim they are, so if they're flushed out, then good.

We face two enemies. The terrorist groups like Al queda

The terrorist groups that you do not identify.

and more troublesome the Arabic societies that nurture and support them.

If they nurture and support them then there is probably no distinction to be made.


I do not have a strategy to fight them, not my expertise.

Yes, you've said many times that you'll blindly leave it up to others. If you haven't identified the enemy, then how do you know whether or not those others are acting in your best interest? I guess you take it on faith.

Unlike you I do not have all the answers.

Uncalled for.

You really need to travel beyond Alabama.

Shades of Helen Clark there.

Richard referrs to beheadings

Richard Wiig's picture

Richard referrs to beheadings in every second post. He cannot get past what he sees on CNN and his world view is formed by it, that and reading the Koran, and neither tell him jack about the complexity of a region and the half a billion who live there.

I don't watch CNN and I haven't read the Qur'an. My view of Islam has been formed by reading those who have made a life or career out of studying Islam, and those who have been close to it so have an intimate knowledge, such as Robert Spencer, Bat Yeor, Bernard Lewis, Hugh Fitzgerald, Sayyd Qutb, the Ayatollah Khomeini, Osama Bin Laden, Ayyn Hirsi Ali, etc. Before reading up on Islam I didn't have an opinion. In contrast, you tell us that there's no problem with Islam even though you haven't looked into it one jot. You base your view on the muslim guy at the corner dairy, along with most muslims, showing no signs of wanting to kill you.

I was not dismissing beheadings I was saying stop obsessing about them.

I don't obsess about beheadings.

Western society is more violent than Islamic ones if you count the dead.

That line is certainly dismissive.

No head

Richard Goode's picture

No headbanging.

and i wasn't

Damien Grant's picture

but you do not form an opinion on a religion or a country by the actions of a small number of its members.

beheadings get reported in the west because they are good for ratings. They do not tell the whole story. I could take isolated elements of US society and paint an awful story and I understand this is how the some Arabic nations world view is formed, by tainted distorted views of Israel and the US that is delivered to them via state controlled media.

Richard referrs to beheadings in every second post. He cannot get past what he sees on CNN and his world view is formed by it, that and reading the Koran, and neither tell him jack about the complexity of a region and the half a billion who live there.

I was not dismissing beheadings I was saying stop obsessing about them.

No.

Jmaurone's picture

You don't dismiss one atrocity by pointing out others.

How about I begin a rant

Damien Grant's picture

How about I begin a rant about the number of deaths in the us caused by handguns?

you can tell me why the much greater number of deaths caused by liberal gun laws are is not a mater for concern but the incredibly rare beheadings are something I should be outraged about.

Fuck You

Jmaurone's picture

"And seriously, stop obsessing about beheadings."

Go fuck yourself, Damien. Just go fuck yourself.

the war

Damien Grant's picture

Should be against those who want to kill us.

If you declare war on Islam you are going to do two things. First, waste a lot of resources attacking and defending against muslims who wish us no harm; that would be most of them.

Second, you will drive these non combatants into the waiting arms of the enemy.

We face two enemies. The terrorist groups like Al queda and more troublesome the Arabic societies that nurture and support them.

I do not have a strategy to fight them, not my expertise. Unlike you I do not have all the answers.

And seriously, stop obsessing about beheadings. Western society is more violent than Islamic ones if you count the dead. You really need to travel beyond Alabama.

Ok, so you don't like it when

Richard Wiig's picture

Ok, so you don't like it when someone doesn't adhere to your train of thought.

Exactly. You have the cause and effect the right way around here. The duty craving mentality is seeking something to attach to, but go further. This duty craving mentality did not attach to Islam, it created it and adapts it to its purpose

What I think created Islam, the creed, was the power-lusting mentality, to which the duty-craving is its cannon-fodder. Duty-craving in and of itself doesn't give rise to ritualistic beheadings, or mass murder, nor to Islam. It is not a cause of those things. It's a necessary precondition for following those things. Islam was created to capture that kind of mind and it seems to be very effective at it. Islam provides the inspiration for its followers heinous actions, whether of a violent nature, or of simply giving moral support to the implementation of Islam. You claim that Islam is not the problem, so who or what is the problem? Who or what should the "War on Terror" be aiming at?

Frick

Damien Grant's picture

Damien: Exactly. You have the cause and effect the right way around here.

Richard: No I do not

Debating you is pointless.

Exactly. You have the cause

Richard Wiig's picture

Exactly. You have the cause and effect the right way around here.

No I do not. As I said, you point out the glaringly obvious. What I'm doing is not broadening the issue so far as to be meaningless. The so-called "War on Terror" is about one thing: Islam. It isn't about all the collectivist cultures in the world.

The duty craving mentality is seeking something to attach to, but go further. This duty craving mentality did not attach to Islam, it created it and adapts it to its purpose. This is why different cultures interpret Islam differently, their duty craving mentality differs from region to region.

Muhammad created Islam and he shaped it in order to seal his own power as a despot, making things up as he went along, changing things to suit him as needed.

I did not say Islam operates separate from culture and I have said that the nature of Islam may (i do not know but I think that this is very likely) make societies more violent than they otherwise would be.

Islam is a totalitarian political creed with some religious mumbo-jumbo thrown in. Of course it shapes culture. There isn't such a thing as Islamic culture for nothing.

So again, do not read the Koran. Look at what people are being taught in schools, look at what they are being told at the mosque, look at what the people in those regions believe.

You'll find out by examining the Qur'an, Hadith and Sunnah, because they don't actually tell you. They hide it from you, Damien. No muslim is going to tell you about Taqqiya, for instance. If it wasn't for people who actually studied Islamic ideology, then Taqqiya would be a complete unknown, and people would be more vulnerable for it. Here comes that brick behind you...

The Koran is a book. Comparing it to the bible, studying it will tell you little or nothing about nations that are or were predominately Christian, it is the same book worshipped by a thousand cultures over seventeen hundred years. Alone it tells you nothing.

Alone, it is actually unintelligible, which is why it's been interpreted via the Hadith. Studying it all, though, actually tells you a hell of a lot. We merely need go back to that brick to see how studying it can be a help.

you are getting closer

Damien Grant's picture

What Islam gives the collectivist, tribalist, duty craving mentality, is a purpose.

Exactly. You have the cause and effect the right way around here. The duty craving mentality is seeking something to attach to, but go further. This duty craving mentality did not attach to Islam, it created it and adapts it to its purpose. This is why different cultures interpret Islam differently, their duty craving mentality differs from region to region.

I did not say Islam operates separate from culture and I have said that the nature of Islam may (i do not know but I think that this is very likely) make societies more violent than they otherwise would be.

So again, do not read the Koran. Look at what people are being taught in schools, look at what they are being told at the mosque, look at what the people in those regions believe. The Koran is a book. Comparing it to the bible, studying it will tell you little or nothing about nations that are or were predominately Christian, it is the same book worshipped by a thousand cultures over seventeen hundred years. Alone it tells you nothing.

 

 

You say Islam is evil. I say

Richard Wiig's picture

You say Islam is evil. I say that the evil you see is actually the culture of some who believe in Islam.

Let's take Islam at its most fundamental. Islam means submission - to the will of Allah. In practice that means, do not think for yourself, simply submit to the rules that are laid out for you in the Shariah. By Objectivist standards, that is evil. It is anti-reason, anti-life.

As for your culture/Islam dichotomy: you seem to be suggesting that Islam is incapable of shaping culture - that it is somehow outside the realm of influencing human thought and action. Current and past events show that clearly to be false. You repeatedly tell me I'm ignorant of cultures that are violent, yet independent from Islam, or that I simply dismiss them for the sake of holding onto a crumbling belief. You are as off beam there as you are in telling me I'm a christian. What Islam gives the collectivist, tribalist, duty craving mentality, is a purpose. The goal of creating a world all for Allah. Islamic jurisprudence and the rules of jihad are all set out for those who want to give it a shot. Islam is itself a culture, and it aims to reign supreme over and dominate other cultures, in fact, to expunge them from the world till there is nothing left but Islam.

I haven't said you don't want

Richard Wiig's picture

I haven't said you don't want to fight him. You have said repeatedly that you do not want to study him. That simply amounts to wilful ignorance over knowledge. You might want to fight, but you've drastically reduced your ability to do it effectively.

you assume Richard

Damien Grant's picture

that because I think that the enemy is driven by forces other than Islam that I not willing to fight him.

Where, in anything that I have every said, gives you that idea?

The enemy wants to kill me. I see no reason to study his religion, espicially as I think it is of little importance.

Correction

gregster's picture

What is evil is to wilfully ignorantly evade reality. [The Moral Is The Practical: OPAR] This is simply because evil is what is not to the good for the living entity. [NOTE WELL: No mention of a higher being]

I wrongly formulated that latter bracketed part. If you think about it the "higher being" is in the "evade reality" concept.

that is where it is at

Richard Wiig's picture

that is where it is at Richard.

You look at Islam through Christian glasses, which is why you cannot see the real issue.

Sorry, but I'm not a christian.

Back in the day heretics were burnt alive and witches were drowned. Were those Christian acts or the acts of a dysfunctional culture that had a Christian religion?

Once again, there's no need to bring Christianity, or any other religion into this. The so-called "War on Terror" isn't taking place because of any religion other than Islam.


Same is true for Islam.

You are not in a position to make that claim until you find out what Islam actually does and doesn't teach.

Here's where you put yourself:

While you talk in favour of being wilfully ignorant of your enemy so that you can simply, smash them, jihadists are reading that they must split Damiens skull from behind with a brick on the 28th day of the sacred month. When the 28th comes, while you are prattling on about how their fighting has nothing to do with Islam, that it's all cultural, your skull is smashed open from behind in a sacred act of devotion. Over and out. If you'd only just taken the time to learn your enemies ideology you'd have been ready for that brick, and you'd have increased your odds of actually smashing them.

yep

Damien Grant's picture

that is where it is at Richard.

You look at Islam through Christian glasses, which is why you cannot see the real issue.

Back in the day heretics were burnt alive and witches were drowned. Were those Christian acts or the acts of a dysfunctional culture that had a Christian religion?

Christianity did not cause heretics to be burnt alive. It was perhaps a factor in what occurred, but it was not itself the only cause, because many societies that were Christian did not burn heretics, both then and now. So, to understand why heretics were burnt, it is necessary to look further than the religion of those doing the burning.

Same is true for Islam. That is what I am saying. In order for your hypothesis to be true, every Muslim society, ever, in all time, must be evil. That clearly is not the case and you are reduced to making up stuff to prove that Indonesian society is evil, that Malaysia is evil, that Muslims in India are evil, that law-abiding Muslims living quietly in the west are evil, that Turkey is evil.

They may believe in a religion that has a greater propensity to violence than other religions, I frankly do not know the answer to that, but I do know that the vast majority of Muslims are not violent. I also know that some middle eastern cultures produce a higher proportion of terrorists than other cultures and I also know that these same cultures tolerate and fail to restrain these terrorists and that this failure is what allows the terror networks to thrive and survive.

As for how these cultures threat themselves internally, I accept that Islam has a severely anti-women and intolerant nature and that Islamic societies are much harsher places than most non-Islamic societies. What I do not know is why but I also know that Islamic society is not monolithic.

I suspect that a culture uses religion to suit its own purpose. In the west we value freedom and therefore adopt religion and religious values that suit that purpose. Perhaps in Arabic culture there is a need or a desire for a more conservative strict discipline to restrain the competing forces of those societies and Islam is the tool that is used. The same need does not exist in say Morocco or Malaysia so a more liberal interpretation of Islam is used there.

Do you really think that if Saudi Arabia were christain they would treat their women folk any better? They would find cause in the Bible for their actions. They want to maintain a patriarchy, they use the religion for that purpose. You must believe that if only we could convert the Arabs to the one true faith all our problems would be solved! You are wrong.

But hey, I respect that you are a fearsome cultural warrior and your committed unthinking hatred of Islam proves that. God bless.
And by the way, stop reading the Koran! If you seriously think reading that will give you an insight into Arab culture then you are an idiot. Go to the Middle East if you want to understand Arab culture. And then go to Malaysia and compare the two. There are totally different.

I looked a little harder

Richard Wiig's picture

I looked a little harder

Fuck off! No one saw that they were muslim and then jumped to any conclusion, especially me. I delved to see where these guys were coming from. I found out that their actions are firmly rooted in Islamic teachings and that they are following Islam, often to the letter. It was only after that that I reached any conclusions. By your admission you don't want to look, don't care to look, know next to nothing of Islam, yet you have the gall to talk to people who have investigated as if they are idiots. One thing you are right about is the Arab supremacy. The Qur'an and Hadith are vehicles for Arab supremacy, but as a religious/political system it reaches further than just the Arabs and it shapes culture as it seeps into minds wherever it's taken on board.

It means I do not take things at face value. I do not rush to unthinking judgement.

But you are unthinking. You don't even want to know your enemy. Can't get much more unthinking about it than that.

bollocks

Damien Grant's picture

You say Islam is evil. I say that the evil you see is actually the culture of some who believe in Islam. I think you have looked at those who do evil, see that they are Muslim and jumped to Conclusion.

I looked a little harder and came to the view that the evil lay elsewhere.

this is not evidence of my falling to think in right or wrong or that I lack principled thought. the reverse, actually. It means I do not take things at face value. I do not rush to unthinking judgement.

It means I deploy reason when confronted with uncertainty. Reason. A commodity that should be valued here but is actually shunned in favour of lesser thought process.

Dame Grant

gregster's picture

I think about the problems we face and the threat to western liberty rather than blindly accept the "Islam is the problem" paradigm spouted here and I'm an appeaser.

I've been easy on you Damien, because you're a newbie. You're at a disadvantage here because you're not familiar with basic definitions. You don't understand "evil." You haven't worked out why there is a right, and there is a wrong. You don't understand why a capitalist is a moral person, compared to a compromised capitalist, or worse, a socialist. But I've digressed.

What is evil is to wilfully ignorantly evade reality. [The Moral Is The Practical: OPAR] This is simply because evil is what is not to the good for the living entity. [NOTE WELL: No mention of a higher being]

And consequently, by your moral equivalence, conscious or not, you will fail to identify evil. You "think about the problems we face" - but you don't seem to think in principle - and is that because you haven't learned to think in principles? Do you not know that there is such a thing as principled thought? There is a black and a white. There is a right and a wrong. A compromise between right and wrong is a wrong.

"Western liberty" (to the greatest degree) is right; a compromised freedom is wrong. A compromised freedom is antagonistic to nature/reality. It won't work. To use a word you'd love - it's unsustainable.

Islam is the most obviously evil unreason we see. If some of us (you) cannot identify that, then other variants of evil will be difficult to overcome.

Think of yourself as not a wind-up merchant but a litmus test for liberty's success.

of course.

Damien Grant's picture

I think about the problems we face and the threat to western liberty rather than blindly accept the "Islam is the problem" paradigm spouted here and I'm an appeaser.

why the fuck can you people not actually discuss an issue?

argh!

I can man this watch Commander

gregster's picture

Don't waste your precious Friday evening hours on an appeaser who won't listen, for reasons unfathomable.

but

Damien Grant's picture

Again you miss the point.

Remind me, which religion was the first to persecute the Christians?

You have given me no facts,

Richard Wiig's picture

You have given me no facts, Damien. You've given me your opinion. The oppression of Christians by Muslims, in Indonesia, and right around the world, is a fact, even if I don't know the numbers. The numbers are largely irrelevant to me. It's all a horror regardless.

A couple of links for you,

Richard Wiig's picture

A couple of links for you, Damien. The second link is very gruesome.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P...

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad...

And a third:

http://www.fica.org/hr/

facts

Damien Grant's picture

Richard.

Hard things.

You produce nothing to contradict my theory that the issue is cultural and religion is a subset of that culture.

You point out the glaringly

Richard Wiig's picture

You point out the glaringly obvious, Damien. I know of Nazism, of tribalist warfare, of the Khymer Rouge, of Maoist Guerrilas, the Shining Path, and on and on, but here's the nub. Outside of Islam isn't the issue. Islam and its current rise is the issue. Doug is right about the John Lewis extract. I guess if you can't see the common thread throughout then you'll never see it.

I ask...

Damien Grant's picture

What would Ceasar do?

Put them to the sword.

Hail Ceasar.

Great Breakdown

Doug Bandler's picture

Afghanistan continues to be strafed by holy warriors trained in Pakistan—a nuclear-armed dictatorship that we have placed off-limits to our own forces. Iraq’s insurgency continues, with Shiite militias, no longer restrained either by Saddam Hussein or by us, growing to fill the political vacuum. Iran is emboldened, its fundamentalist leadership ever more vocal, its program of nuclear development open and expanding. Saudi Arabia—our alleged ally—funds religious schools that teach hatred of the West and train an endless stream of jihadists. We pay two-billion dollars a year in tribute to Egypt, so that they will refrain from attacking Israel. Sudan engages in genocide under theocratic rule, while Somalia, Nigeria, and other countries are following suit, their tribal clerics doling out Islamic law under trees. Syria—a second-generation thugocracy on the verge of collapse a few years ago—has been resurrected and emboldened. Hezbollah has taken over Southern Lebanon. The Gaza is a new terror enclave under the democratically elected terror-cult Hamas. The Muslim Brotherhood is winning elections in Egypt. Other anti-Western militant groups are winning elections and subverting Western values from Spain to Indonesia. Across the world—including Canada, England, and the U.S.—Muslim cells plot more attacks and plan political takeovers, all the while hiding behind constitutional protections that they have sworn to destroy. Anyone daring to renounce or criticize Islam may have to live forever underground, in fear of murder sanctioned by religious decree.

Awesome breakdown of the post-modern insanity that has been our post 9-11 foreign policy. This is a list of self-destructive actions that can make one feel that the end of the world is nigh. And this is all the product of post-modern skepticism and relativism. This really is the legacy of Kant and his descendents. That man unleashed hell on the world.

When a culture rejects absolutes then it has no way of defending itself against its enemies. This is the essence of the Leftist world we live in; a culture hell bent on civilizational destruction. And all we can do is watch. Fucking depressing.

facts

Damien Grant's picture

I understand that you reject facts that do not sit with your views. It is easier to reject facts than think, so you dismiss facts as mere statistics. I am not surprised, I said you would. You are predictable. 

This may also come as a shock, but ethnic and religious violence has been with us long before Islam. Pol Pot was not a Muslim, neither was Mao and it is possible that Mao killed a lot more people in his single life time than Islam has over the last century, possibly two or three centuries. 

Your obsessive fascination with Islamic violence means that you cannot look past what you see on CNN. Because an act of violence is committed by a Christian does that make it a Christian crime?

Look Richard, I do not want to debate this because it puts me in the odd position of defending Islamic societies when I really I am appalled by everything about any fundamentalist religious society. The difference between us, however, is that I listen to what you say, look into to, and am willing to change my views if the facts or reason were to support your view.

 

Take ten minutes and think about what I am saying. Violence in south east asia has been around since adam was a boy, (pun intended). Because some of this violence is now being committed by people who are Islamic means nothing. You would need to study similar societies with different religions and control for things like economic development and political stability to see if being Islamic was a cause of an increase in violence.

 

This has not, that I am aware of, happened. The beheading in Afghanistan was almost certainly political and not religious. Religion was a cover used by the Taliban to instil fear into the local population to enforce obedience.  

 

My view is that the violence is predominately cultural. There is Hindi violence in India and there is Muslim violence in Pakistan. Bangladesh is less violent than Pakistan because of a different political culture despite sharing a similar religion.

 

 

Rubbish! I see exactly what

Richard Wiig's picture

Rubbish! I see exactly what you're saying. That I don't agree with you doesn't mean my mind is fixed, immobile, or closed-minded. You say that Islam isn't the problem. For very good reason I 100% disagree with you. Islam is the problem. And yes, I did know it was 1 in 100,000. It's still a pointless exercise. Lies, damned lies, and statistics. The number of murdered Christians in Indonesia, whether it's 10,000, 8,000, 6, or 12, is pretty much irrelevant. There's been jihad violence going on there for decades, and it continues. That isn't Arab culture doing that, it's piously Islamic Indonesians doing that. Aceh, for instance, is under Sharia law. It wasn't just a few years ago. The problem with your know nothing, just smash them, philosophy (the type of thinking your criticised earlier as a narrow-minded rugby and beer mentality) is that you'll send soldiers overseas to fight, while the very enemy they're fighting grows right under your own nose - and you'll let it grow because you've wilfully blinded yourself.

lovers of liberty

Damien Grant's picture

You cannot just quote random numbers to bolster your views.

I did not say there had been one murder, there had been one murder per 100,000, and I referenced my source, then United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. By contrast the US has 4.2 murders per 100,000. The US is a much more violent society if you use murder as the benchmark.

You spout some stuff you have heard about in the media; anecdotal evidence, worthless.

Islam maybe a totalitarian system, but if you are using the level of homicides as a test then it compares better to the west.

Now, in case you had missed what I had been saying, if there exists a totalitarian structure in the Middle East, my view is that this is a result of the prevailing Arabic culture that exists in some (but not all) regions, of which Islam is a part.

You will (well, you won't) note that I am not saying Islamic nations are nice places. I am not denying that there exists a totalitarian society. I am not saying that these people do not want to kill us and I am not saying we should negotiate, reason, or debate with them.

What I am saying is that there are other nations that have Islam and do not have such a culture. I am saying that we need to look past Islam to understand the threat that we face.

Your mind is so closed, so fixed, so immovable, that you cannot see what is being said. You only know enough that it does not accord with what you think so you close your mind to it and reject both the argument and the person saying it.

I haven't validated the

Richard Wiig's picture

I haven't validated the figure of 10,000, it may well be wrong, but I'm not making things up. There has been much violence between Christians and Muslims in various parts of Indonesia, with deaths on both sides. There is essentially a war of attrition going on. Here's one link on the oppression of Indonesian Christians: http://www.nasty-bali.org/sula...

As for Islam, a totalitarian system that regulates every aspect of human life, not being evil... it's akin to saying that nazism is not evil. Simply because it comes under the mantel of "Religion" you give it a free pass. I don't care about the numbers you produce on murder rates. They're entirely irrelevant. They can't be trusted anyway when you claim there's only been 1 murder in Saudi Arabia. In Saudi Arabia they execute people for being witches and for blaspheming their murderous, pedophile prophet, and you have the gall to present a figure of 1, and do so in defence of a vile, evil, disgusting creed. You're certainly no liberty lover.

the nature of evil

Damien Grant's picture

Define evil?

Let us look at the murder rate shall we:

Per 100,000
United States; 4.02
Saudi Arabia; 1

Any questions?

Check out the full rate here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...

Now, sure, honour killing, beheading folks for their music and giving women grief for not wearing a head-scarf, etc etc. All terrible, but the dead are the dead.

Islam means that different sorts of people are killed (adulteress and musicians instead of drug merchants and street walkers) but the body count of murdered are higher in western nations that Islamic ones.

As for religion, it is not evil. It is a belief system. I believe in the Big Bang theory even though I do not understand it, cannot prove it, and would be unable to understand it even if I looked at the science. My belief in this is based on, frankly, faith.

If you are an evil person you will find an excuse in your religion to do evil. If you are a good person who believes in Islam you will not commit acts of evil.

It is accurate to claim that there are elements of Islam that preach jihad; that recruit the weak and encourage them to commit acts of violence that they would not otherwise do, and that they do this deliberately; some elements of the Madrassas school system fall into his category as do the suicide bomber recruiters who never seem to run out of gullible young men keen to get to the 72 virgins.

So, sure, Islam can be used by those who wish to do so to encourage young men to commit acts of violence that they otherwise not commit, but the same analysis can be applied to the belief that there should be no gun-control. Free access to weapons leads to more violence. This is a fact, just not one that will be accepted here, but it is still a fact.

Yes, I agree Islam does appear to be impressive in its ability to produce remarkably intolerant and irrational believers, many of who present an existential threat to the west. I agree we are at war, possibly one to the death, possibly one we will lose and I am not a peacenik, as the opening post here indicates, but I find the certainty here frustrating.

The more I know the less certain I become and the more certain someone is the less I trust them. The world is full of grey, much more than fifty shades I am afraid.

The answers are not easy, slogans are usually wrong and only fools have all the answers.

And by the way, where is the proof, Richard, that 10,000 Christians have been killed in Indonesia? This caught me off-guard so I goggled it, got nothing. No mainstream reporting of sustained anti-Christian murders in that country. Did you make this 'fact' up? Likewise I entered "Bangladesh hijabs attacks", got eight hits, nothing relevant. Nothing. You are just making stuff up to bolster your arguments. Truly hopeless.

Afghanistan continues to be

gregster's picture

Afghanistan continues to be strafed by holy warriors trained in Pakistan—a nuclear-armed dictatorship that we have placed off-limits to our own forces. Iraq’s insurgency continues, with Shiite militias, no longer restrained either by Saddam Hussein or by us, growing to fill the political vacuum. Iran is emboldened, its fundamentalist leadership ever more vocal, its program of nuclear development open and expanding. Saudi Arabia—our alleged ally—funds religious schools that teach hatred of the West and train an endless stream of jihadists. We pay two-billion dollars a year in tribute to Egypt, so that they will refrain from attacking Israel. Sudan engages in genocide under theocratic rule, while Somalia, Nigeria, and other countries are following suit, their tribal clerics doling out Islamic law under trees. Syria—a second-generation thugocracy on the verge of collapse a few years ago—has been resurrected and emboldened. Hezbollah has taken over Southern Lebanon. The Gaza is a new terror enclave under the democratically elected terror-cult Hamas. The Muslim Brotherhood is winning elections in Egypt. Other anti-Western militant groups are winning elections and subverting Western values from Spain to Indonesia. Across the world—including Canada, England, and the U.S.—Muslim cells plot more attacks and plan political takeovers, all the while hiding behind constitutional protections that they have sworn to destroy. Anyone daring to renounce or criticize Islam may have to live forever underground, in fear of murder sanctioned by religious decree.

Five years to the month after 9/11, and in stark contrast to the situation in Japan five years after Pearl Harbor, an Islamic cleric, Abu Bakar Ba’asyir, a teacher at an Islamic school in Java, and a killer in the Bali bombing of 2002 who was released from prison in June 2006, now openly promotes a new constitution for Indonesia:

We demand an Islamic state, and not some form of Islamisation of society. We want the state to be Islamic, with Islamic leaders who have the courage and will to implement the Islamic law in total. . . .
We want an Islamic state where Islamic law is not just in the books but enforced, and enforced with determination. There is no space and no room for democratic consultation. The Islamic law is set and fixed, so why discuss it? Just implement it!
Right now we are drafting our own constitutional amendments for Indonesia, the framework for an Indonesian Islamic state where Islamic laws are enforced. Indonesians must understand that there is no Islamic state without the enforcement of Islamic laws.

This is Islamic Totalitarianism—State Islam—rule by Islamic Law—and it is on the rise. While this cleric plots an Islamic State, people from countries where children are taught that Jews are born of pigs and monkeys, and that Israel is “occupied territory” and fair game for attack, rail against so-called anti-Muslim “prejudice.” Inside America, leaders of hostile countries give speeches to build “bridges of understanding” while building nuclear bombs overseas.9 Adherents of Islam claim to be victims of persecution, assertions they make on national television, from pulpits, and in tenured university positions.

The late John David Lewis. [No the 'slime didn't get him.]

Be careful not to equate only

Richard Wiig's picture

Be careful not to equate only violent acts with being anti-western. A majority of Muslims seemed to support the oppression of freedom of speech over the mow-hamid cartoons - non-violent, but still very anti-western. The argument doesn't wilt when you name Bosnia (an actual hotbed of jihad activity), Bangladesh (a country where pious Muslims attack women for not wearing hijabs), Indonesia (a country where over ten thousand Christians have been murdered in jihad violence in recent times), or any other nation state. Islam does not recognize nation states, it is a state unto itself. The Ummah is one wherever Muslims reside, and it is their religious duty to install Islam. That is the bottom line in Islam, and it is not simplifying anything to call it evil. It is evil.

I agree that Islam may lend

Damien Grant's picture

I agree that Islam may lend itself to greater violence than other faiths, but I'm mindful that the majority of Muslims do not engage in anti western acts. I'm unaware of the Indonesian case that you refer but one event is not going to change my view.

If you look at Afghanistan, the Taliban were mostly inward looking. They may not have been fun people to be around but they were not interested in attacking the west.

That agenda came from their Al queda brothers, who were, my point, Arabic.

Indian muslims are much less engaged in jihad than their Arabic cousins.

This does not mean that there are not Indian jihadists, there are, but it is much harder to recruit them than it is Saudis.

And even the vast majority of Arabs have no interest in making trouble, that agenda is driven by a tiny minority, my criticism of Arab society is their tolerance of the fanatics and willingness to provide them shelter, is what condemns them.

Look, I am not saying I have the answer, I do not, but the argument that Islam is evil is simplistic.

it is a very popular meme but if you look objectively at our enemies, it does not withstand even a cursory analysis.

In fact all I need to say is Bosnia and the argument wilts. If i say Bangladesh it sags, and when I say Indonesia it should die.

Damien

Richard Wiig's picture

Look closer and you'll see they are not anti-western fanatics. They are anti anything that isn't Islam fanatics. The Bamiyan Buddahs were not Western (nor are the pyramids of Egypt that pious muslims want to destroy) and their destroyers were not Arabic. The christian schoolgirls beheaded on their way to school were not beheaded by Arabs, but by Indonesian muslims. All around the world there are acts of violent jihad by muslims who are not arab. The common thread that links them all is Islam.

Damien said: "I do not see how you can consider Islam the problem when we have places like Indonesia that are not anti western.

The problem appears to be some Arabic populations that produce anti western fanatics and fail to restrain them.

Exactly why this is I do not know.

Lindsay

Doug Bandler's picture

I agree with your critique, and I think you know it doesn't apply to *this* Objectivist. I have long advocated a moratorium on mosque-building and Islamofilth immigration, on the unassailable ground that we are in a war with them as declared by them. When Leonard came out and said if *that* mosque got to the stage of being built, the government should blow it up—causing the scatter-brained Hsieh to dissolve in a puddle of political correctness—I supported him immediately, notwithstanding all my other disagreements with him. Who else did??!! And there you have one factor in the equation you don't mention: cowardice. Political correctness—with its moral equivalency, cultural relativism and underlying sneering nihilism—makes cowards even of Objectivists (or rather, they allow it to). You've mentioned many things lately that make you want to spit. Cowardice makes me want to spit. And it's *everywhere*. Whole lotta spitting to do!

Yes, you were one of the few Objectivists to see the problems with mainstream O'ism from the start. You were way ahead of the curve. Far more far-seeing than me. I was a Tracinski-ite until 2006. Ugh.

And you were right to support Lenny about the Mosque, even though he has been wrong about so much else; ie the Fatwa. Also, you were right to see Hsieh for the flake that she is. You've got more than a rational philosophy going for you. You have WISDOM, something most O'ists can't even spell. I'm still wrestling with it myself.

Gregster

Doug Bandler's picture

Forcibly applying democracy - everywhere a demonstrable failure - to savage mystics is dangerous. It would be best to leave them to their pig pens, and throw/trade them a few scraps. If the animal farm completely descends into atrocity, fire in a few targeted missiles to maintain a semblance of order until the next atrocity. Over time, if my theory's correct, we may see they learn from example. At the moment the animals bite the hands that feed. Allow Islam to reach its unavoidable conclusion in each of its locales. They are savages, proof of the missing conceptual link. Allow Darwinian evolution to work its wonders. Christianity, is a closely-related specie, of course, and Objectivism should not let it out of its sights.

Inspiring comment. This is what I would love to see from the majority of O'ists. Then the movement would have some balls and maybe some traction.

Also, I love the use of the term "The Vatican". Heh.

editors

Damien Grant's picture

Life would be dull without them.

I'll be there

gregster's picture

I've grown up among mystics and you'll be little surprise.

Greg

Richard Goode's picture

What do you do with the codeine? inject it in the brain stem?

No. It's Nurofen Plus which I take for my RSI. Maximum 6 tablets in 24 hours. Totally legit. (But I had to give my name, address and reason for existence to the police state.)

"Targeted relief from strong pain." Sounds like one of Obama's drones.

So, are you coming to the conference? Don't I owe you a beer?

Dame

gregster's picture

I see you keep the editor busy.

No Goode

gregster's picture

Codeine huh?. That won't get you there. There's a great quencher for those with a thirst for the afterlife - methanol.

Me, on holiday, I'm all smiles, despite your trolling.

What do you do with the codeine? inject it in the brain stem?

goodeness me

Damien Grant's picture

Of course I was making light of a human tragedy, quite a good joke I thought.

I can't be outraged at every human tragedy that occurs, you would think no one hear had heard a bad taste piece of humour before.

And in any event, my views on the middle east are not in alignment with the prevailing sentiment here, viewing our enemies as being more ethnic and cultural than religious in nature.

If you care to stop and think about that comment for a second you may see a that the difference is huge, that my position far more extreme than looking at Islam, and that I think most here have looked at a common feature of the enemy but have totally missed the essential nature of the threat.

You can, in theory, reason with and deal with a religious meme. I'm saying do not bother. Religion is a trait shared by those we are fighting but it is not the reason they are fighting.

Greg

Richard Goode's picture

Stop it with the skunk.

I'm having an alcohol and codeine evening. How about you?

(Boundary Road Brewery does a nice IPA, the Pilsener's not bad either.)

Linz

Richard Goode's picture

And enjoy your smart-assery.

Division of labour?

Oh, Richie No Goode

gregster's picture

No matter how baade one's taste in music, the Taleban refuse all of it.

I think dear Dame was joking, and that's baade enough.

Are you trolling?

You're not setting a very Goode example from any higher intelligence.

Stop it with the skunk.

You know ...

Richard Goode's picture

A miracle is a violation of the laws of nature; and as a firm and unalterable experience has established these laws, the proof against a miracle, from the very nature of the fact, is as entire as any argument from experience can possibly be imagined. . . . But it is a miracle, that a dead man should come to life; because that has never been observed in any age or country. . . . There must, therefore, be a uniform experience against every miraculous event, otherwise the event would not merit that appellation. And as uniform experience amounts to a proof, there is here a direct and full proof, from the nature of the fact, against the existence of any miracle.

... I'm inclined to think Hume was taking the piss.

Side-step ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

... as you may, Baade-filth. And enjoy your smart-assery. You're filth.

Mohamed Atta ...

Richard Goode's picture

Only a Goblian nihilist like you, Baade, would embrace reason's being invoked for purposes of destruction.

... was a Goblian nihilist?

Greg

Richard Goode's picture

If Dame Grant had just now made that same joke about the musical tastes of our slain soldiers - would that be seen in jest? He made that joke about a group who did not adhere to the Taliban - in my mind that gives those poor bastards some credit.

I don't think Damien was joking.

No doubt the party goers were displaying exceptionally poor taste in "music" and deserved to die. If not by simple beheading, then at least by multiple stab wounds.

No perhaps about it ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

... you shyster, except to the extent that Hume pragmatically muted his anti-Goblianity to avoid persecution from your loathsome Goblian ilk.

Nonetheless:

A miracle is a violation of the laws of nature; and as a firm and unalterable experience has established these laws, the proof against a miracle, from the very nature of the fact, is as entire as any argument from experience can possibly be imagined. . . . But it is a miracle, that a dead man should come to life; because that has never been observed in any age or country. . . . There must, therefore, be a uniform experience against every miraculous event, otherwise the event would not merit that appellation. And as uniform experience amounts to a proof, there is here a direct and full proof, from the nature of the fact, against the existence of any miracle.

Here, Hume departed from his own dichotomy, decreeing that "uniform experience" does in fact entitle humans to arrive at generalisations. Gosh, he might have even, without going to the pub, assumed the sun would rise the next day!

And that men do not come back to life after death. Do you know of an instance where a man has, Baade?

On Christianity....

Marcus's picture

The Christian Religion not only was at first attended with miracles, but even at this day cannot be believed by any reasonable person without one. Mere reason is insufficient to convince us of its veracity: and whoever is moved by Faith to assent to it, is conscious of a continued miracle in his own person, which subverts all the principles of his understanding, and gives him a determination to believe what is most contrary to custom and experience.

Hume

Richard Goode's picture

Though interestingly, your "greatest philosopher who ever lived" eschewed Goblianity.

Perhaps. Even so

The whole frame of nature bespeaks an intelligent author; and no rational enquirer can, after serious reflection, suspend his belief a moment with regard to the primary principles of genuine Theism and Religion.

David Hume

Marcus's picture

Does a man of sense run after every silly tale of hobgoblins or fairies, and canvass particularly the evidence? I never knew anyone, that examined and deliberated about nonsense who did not believe it before the end of his enquiries.

As I said ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

... filth. Reason is man's tool of survival. Only a Goblian nihilist like you, Baade, would embrace reason's being invoked for purposes of destruction. Though interestingly, your "greatest philosopher who ever lived" eschewed Goblianity. He also knew his sceptical stuff was septic, from which he sought refuge by going to the pub, knowing that the sun would, indeed, rise the next day.

The most important words ever written ...

Richard Goode's picture

[P]assions can be contrary to reason only so far as they are accompany'd with some judgment or opinion. According to this principle, which is so obvious and natural, 'tis only in two senses, that any affection can be call'd unreasonable. First, when a passion, such as hope or fear, grief or joy, despair or security, is founded on the supposition or the existence of objects, which really do not exist. Secondly, When in exerting any passion in action, we chuse means insufficient for the design'd end, and deceive ourselves in our judgment of causes and effects. Where a passion is neither founded on false suppositions, nor chuses means insufficient for the end, the understanding can neither justify nor condemn it. 'Tis not contrary to reason to prefer the destruction of the whole world to the scratching of my finger. 'Tis not contrary to reason for me to choose my total ruin, to prevent the least uneasiness of an Indian or person wholly unknown to me. 'Tis as little contrary to reason to prefer even my own acknowledge'd lesser good to my greater, and have a more ardent affection for the former than the latter.

... by the greatest philosopher who ever lived.

You wont get a rational reply...

Marcus's picture

...from Goode.

The research is in.

Although unfairly they didn't take the education system or the dumbed down culture into account.

Cannabis smoking 'permanently lowers IQ'

"Researchers found persistent users of the drug, who started smoking it at school, had lower IQ scores as adults.

They were also significantly more likely to have attention and memory problems in later life, than their peers who abstained.

Furthermore, those who started as teenagers and used it heavily, but quit as adults, did not regain their full mental powers, found academics at King’s College London and Duke University in the US.

They looked at data from over 1,000 people from Dunedin in New Zealand, who have been followed through their lives since being born in 1972 or 1973.

Participants were asked about cannabis usage when they were 18, 21, 26, 32 and 38. Their IQ was tested at 13 and 38. In addition, each nominated a close friend or family member, who was asked about attention and memory problems.

About one in 20 admitted to starting cannabis use before the age of 18, while a further one in 10 took up the habit in the early or mid 20s.

Professor Terrie Moffitt, of KCL’s Institute of Psychiatry, who contributed to the study, published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, said “persistent users” who started as teenagers suffered a drop of eight IQ points at the age of 38, compared to when they were 13."

Jeezy ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

... *is* a joke. Note how no Goblian has attempted to take on my Lonely Goblin fable. What is not a joke is the absence of any moral impulse in the typical responses of the likes of Damien, Leonid and Baade to situations which ought to cause revulsion. Again I say, the policy of allowing free rein to all opinions is illuminating ... but frankly, depressing. I simply do not begin to comprehend how someone can make light of the beheading of 17 people by Taleban-filth. That same someone will condemn me for calling them "Taleban-filth." Herein lies the answer to what's wrong with our age. It's Babsism, though of course that foul bitch did not originate it. It's Goblianity, with its "forgive thine enemy." It's political correctness. It's moral equivalency. It's cultural relativism. It's this, from Hume, quoted approvingly by Baade-filth:

'Tis not contrary to reason to prefer the destruction of the whole world to the scratching of my finger. 'Tis not contrary to reason for me to choose my total ruin, to prevent the least uneasiness of an Indian or person wholly unknown to me. 'Tis as little contrary to reason to prefer even my own acknowledge'd lesser good to my greater, and have a more ardent affection for the former than the latter.

Does anyone get that??!! Unadulterated filth.

It's unreason. And it will wreak its own reward in the form of an Islamofilth dirty bomb or some such, which it will thoroughly deserve. The only hope for humanity now is post-cataclysm.

No, No Goode

gregster's picture

"You can make jokes about anything. Except Jesus and 9-11."

You can make jokes about many things. To make a joke is to not be serious. If the comment is not intended to be taken seriously then, it is only a joke. But to laugh at the expense of the undeserving is no joke. To ridicule the noble is to ridicule existence. To be irreverent to human life is no laughing matter. If Dame Grant had just now made that same joke about the musical tastes of our slain soldiers - would that be seen in jest? He made that joke about a group who did not adhere to the Taliban - in my mind that gives those poor bastards some credit. And, of course, Jesus can be joked about. More accurately, not the Jesus individual himself, but the volumes of preposterous nonsense that have been writ in his name. The Jesus mythology most certainly can and should be ridiculed. One can make jokes about 9-11, and that would bring one to the same level as any other killer of humanity. You've already placed yourself in that company, and you don't appear to mind rubbing our faces in it.

Doug

Lindsay Perigo's picture

I agree with your critique, and I think you know it doesn't apply to *this* Objectivist. I have long advocated a moratorium on mosque-building and Islamofilth immigration, on the unassailable ground that we are in a war with them as declared by them. When Leonard came out and said if *that* mosque got to the stage of being built, the government should blow it up—causing the scatter-brained Hsieh to dissolve in a puddle of political correctness—I supported him immediately, notwithstanding all my other disagreements with him. Who else did??!! And there you have one factor in the equation you don't mention: cowardice. Political correctness—with its moral equivalency, cultural relativism and underlying sneering nihilism—makes cowards even of Objectivists (or rather, they allow it to). You've mentioned many things lately that make you want to spit. Cowardice makes me want to spit. And it's *everywhere*. Whole lotta spitting to do!

That's what I think Linz...

Marcus's picture

...they should be rewarded for doing their jobs. If they suspected secret messages on them this was perfectly fine. It was not a malicious act which I guess is why they did not prosecute them.

Tonight on channel 4 is Islam, the untold story by Tom Holland who recently released In the Shadow of the Sword.

"He explains that the traditional story of Islamic origins and the life of the Prophet was only written down a hundred years after the events occurred, and was edited by writers whose primary motivation was theological, and who needed to ground their own political and legal innovations by creating retrospective case history."

Kudos to channel 4 for having the balls to do this during primerime.

Punished?

Lindsay Perigo's picture

They should be rewarded.

US troops punished for Koran burning, not prosecuted though

Marcus's picture

US troops punished

"For the Koran burning, the six soldiers face "administrative punishments" that could include measures like reduction of rank, extra duty or forfeiture of pay. They are four officers and two non-commissioned officers."

Heads up

Richard Goode's picture

Glad to see you're capable of making light of indiscriminate murder - Not.

You can make jokes about anything. Except Jesus and 9-11.

Heads off up. September 30 is Blasphemy Day. I've got a couple of good ones I'm saving until then. Evil

Dame Grant

gregster's picture

I had to reset my viewing settings to check whether that was in answer to No Goode, and the beheadings.

Glad to see you're capable of making light of indiscriminate murder - Not. If I didn't find it funny, and I didn't, and I've had one drink, it really isn't.

Excellent post Doug

gregster's picture

Forcibly applying democracy - everywhere a demonstrable failure - to savage mystics is dangerous. It would be best to leave them to their pig pens, and throw/trade them a few scraps. If the animal farm completely descends into atrocity, fire in a few targeted missiles to maintain a semblance of order until the next atrocity. Over time, if my theory's correct, we may see they learn from example. At the moment the animals bite the hands that feed. Allow Islam to reach its unavoidable conclusion in each of its locales. They are savages, proof of the missing conceptual link. Allow Darwinian evolution to work its wonders. Christianity, is a closely-related specie, of course, and Objectivism should not let it out of its sights.

Beautiful to see your words in opposition to immigration of the members of this death cult. You consider the full context. This recognizes the nature of Islam. It identifies the aims of Islam as lethal to freedom. It identifies the methods of Islam. Islam intends to spread and populate and takeover. Whether it could is not the question. A slow-acting poison remains a poison, and with repeat doses, death will come.

"That the Objectivist movement hasn't yet figured that out yet fills me with terrible sadness."

I disagree that Objectivism has been a total failure. Some "Vatican" voices have been in the firing line over their statements against Islam. For my part I have attempted to formulate a reasoned approach, and you have read it here. Peikoff stuck his neck out (a description of some comments from 'objectivists' here) over the Ground Zero Mosque.

I agree this ideological battle's significance has been horribly underestimated, but to expect an updated formulation from the "Vatican" is unreasonable. They are individuals with their own priorities. I wouldn't expect, nor wish, an Objectivist policy on the matter. But I would expect more urgency from Objectivists. That is what some of us attempt here.

There is not a more grotesque system in our Universe than Islam. President B.O. and the comprachicoed are equally evil in sanctioning that women-killing, world-wrecking cult.

"Although it heartens me that there are some (increasing) exceptions."

 

 

 

Dr. Peikoff says that the proper reply to the whole evil of terrorism or Islamic fundamentalism are the following:

Restate the morality of America’s Founding Fathers;
Declare war with states that sponsor terrorism, which include Iran;
Do not permit or oppose the construction of the NYC mega-mosque.
In conclusion, Dr. Peikoff provides the following statement:

“In regard to this issue, I would say, any way possible, permission should be refused, and if they go ahead and build it, the government should bomb it out of existence. Evacuating it first with no compensation to any of the property owners involved in this monstrosity.”

Technical addition in case of those who read closely: my use of the word "Islam" incorporates the concept that it is made up of individuals.

music

Damien Grant's picture

If you have ever had to listen to Afghani music then maybe you would be less judgemental.

The party's over

Richard Goode's picture

Insurgents behead 17 civilians - Afghan officials

Afghan officials say Taliban insurgents have beheaded 17 Afghan civilians for taking part in a music event in a Taliban-controlled area of southern Afghanistan.

The Interior Ministry says the attack happened in Helmand province and that gunfire was also involved.

Helmand provincial government spokesman Daoud Ahmadi says the attack happened in Musa Qala district. Ahmadi says all of the victims had their heads chopped off. He says it was not clear if they were shot first.

The Musa Qala government chief says the people had gathered for a celebration and were playing music and dancing and the insurgents wanted to stop the event.

Neyamatullah Khan says the area where the slaughter took place is completely in Taliban control and so he does not have more details yet.

- AP

Islam

Damien Grant's picture

I do not see how you can consider Islam the problem when we have places like Indonesia that are not anti western.

The problem appears to be some Arabic populations that produce anti western fanatics and fail to restrain them.

Exactly why this is I do not know. Why Saudi produces suicide bombers and Morocco does not is confusing.

In any event, I agree on immigration, I prefer a more restrictive approach to migrants from nations with a pronounced anti western bias but I do not think we need to focus on Islam.

There are crazies of all religions out there. The Japanese used to send suicide pilots and they were not Muslim, just fanatical anti western zealots.

at the moment we face a challenge from some Arabic populations, but even this us not uniform, look at the uae. Jordan.

Saying the problem is Islam is easy, and maybe it is part of the problem and maybe elements of that faith exacerbate the problem, but it is not, in itself, the problem.

it goes beyond Afghanistan

Doug Bandler's picture

America's foreign policy is so flawed it would take a three volume treatise to document it all. But here are some bullet points for now:

* Our enemy has never been properly identified. Not even by mainstream Objectivists. Our enemy is not "Totalitarian Islam" as Yaron Brook tells us or "Islamism" as Craig Biddle tells us. Our enemy is Islam and that means the Ummah.

* Our general foreign policy should have been to do whatever weakens the house of Islam. War policy is just one aspect of that.

* We should NEVER have been nation building or trying to spread "democracy" in the Islamic world. That was a piece of LEFTIST delusion.

* Yes Bush's foreign policy which the entire mainstream Conservative movement signed on to was just LEFTIST social engineering applied to foreign policy. It really wasn't even Conservative because true Conservatives would not have ever wanted to try to save the Islamic world from itself. Bush and the majority of today's mainstream Conservatives are really watered down Leftists in so many ways. But Objectivists know little to nothing of what true Conservatism really is.

* Objectivism has falsely focused on war policy; ie "bomb them to oblivion." I did this myself and yes bold, ferocious war should have been waged. But the true solution to our problem with Islam lies not in war.

* It lies in immigration and population. We should never have allowed ANY Muslims to enter the West. Muslims can not exist in any significant numbers without trying to impose the will of Allah and Islam.

Understand this. The main failure of our "war" is one of identification. Because of the effects of skepticism, subjectivism, relativism and egalitarianism we have not been able to classify Islam and Muslims correctly. This is not just the failure of the mainstream Left and Right BUT OF OBJECTIVISM AS WELL.

Islam is a warrior cult whose very essence, its very conception of piety, is eternal, never-ending, ceaseless warfare dedicated to the CONQUEST OF ALL NON-MUSLIM HUMANITY. That the Objectivist movement hasn't yet figured that out yet fills me with terrible sadness. Which is why I keep saying if Ayn Rand were alive today she would spit.

The US needs to let Afghanistan and Iraq go. We need to rethink our entire foreign policy from the bottom up and we need to acknowledge the unalterable evil of Islam. This is impossible in the post-modern Leftist world we live in. Not even O'ists are up to the challenge. Although it heartens me that there are some (increasing) exceptions.

Who's for the shit hit?

gregster's picture

President B.O. may launch a few days of air strikes somewhere in October to make sure of his re-election. I'm betting Iran. But that's a good idea, and he has so few. Let's see what he does.

To neglect knowing your enemy

Richard Wiig's picture

To neglect knowing your enemy in favour of "simply smashing them" is to adopt the thoughtless approach that you say you oppose. BTW, I don't think my position is in opposition to Ross. I favour getting out. Strike militarily when it's necessary to strike, then leave them to pick up the pieces. If we are to help them, then let them show that they deserve our help.

islam

Damien Grant's picture

well, ok.

But as I think we have discussed, I think looking at Islam is a waste of time. You cannot debate religion, do not even try. Kill those who want to kill you and lets not be too fussed about why they want to kill us.

I did say it was in a

Richard Wiig's picture

I did say it was in a nutshell, Damien. That necessarily leaves out the details. Smashing them means don't tip toe around. It means focussing on the actual problem, the parts of Islam that are leading to this shit. It means such things as blasting a mosque if need be, not apologising for someone accidentally dumping a qur'an in the garbage, not accepting the qur'an as a foundation for law in Afghanistan, or anywhere. It means making no apologies if civilians are killed - it's regretable, but the full blame lies with the Taliban. It means dropping the softly-softly let's make friends approach. It's not supposed to be a welfare mission.

Ross and Richard...

Damien Grant's picture

Two, opposed, and equally certain views.

Richard. How the frick are you going to smash the Taleban when you do not know who they are or where they are?

You can bomb the sand in Kandahar for weeks if that makes you feel better, nuke Kabul, drop purple rain over the Silk Road and not kill more than a dozen enemy fighters.

Typical unthinking "smash 'em" nonsense I expect to hear at the All Blacks game tonight. We cannot "smash them", I think that is exactly the problem. They do not line up in nice neat rows with fixed bayonets like gentleman.

And Ross. Really. Just walk away? That, if you recall, was what Reagan did in Lebanon in 1983 and lead to a series of beliefs and actions that lead directly to the 2011 attacks in New York. We cannot walk away. They blow up our trains, in our cities. If walking away solved the problem, great, it worked in Vietnam, maybe it will work here, who knows, but I doubt it. Walking away now proves that the west is weak, it can be beaten, that it cannot be trusted and those who stand by us will be hunted and killed.

I am not saying I have the answer. I am saying that most of those who claim with certainty that the do, are idiots.

Proof here has been provided.

Of course there's an answer.

Ross Elliot's picture

You get out.

What's the alternative? Eleven years turns into 20 years?

The policy has been wrong almost from the get-go.

Objectivists don't have a problem with a solution. Objecto-Conservatives do. If you corrupt your thinking with conservative views, you get the clusterfuck in Afghanistan.

The war as it has stood for the past decade could not be waged by Objectivists. It can only be waged by conservatives who think that troops and welfare can change a mindset. They can't.

In a nutshell, the correct

Richard Wiig's picture

In a nutshell, the correct strategy is to smash them so hard that their morale is utterly destroyed and to do it without apology.

but what?

Damien Grant's picture

The problem is what is the right strategy?

When the west left last time the Taliban took over.

Staying on is not working either. I do not have the answer and I suspect many of those who claim with certainty they know what to do are equally clueless.

Hang on...

Ross Elliot's picture

"Obama’s strategy is to reduce and remake the American military into an international social services agency"

...when Obama came into office, the US had already been running a social services agency in Afghanistan for a couple of years.

Is the function of the US military to win hearts and minds or to hammer those who attack the United States? If it's not the latter, then I'm obviously confused as to the function of the military.

Eleven years now? A wholly corrupt Afghanistan government? A government that would fall if not for the US? A government that would be quite happy to form an alliance with the Taliban?

I've said it before: this should never have been a war of occupation. The occupation can't endure. You hit them hard. If they get uppity, you hit them hard again. Rinse and repeat. But to occupy and to treat this whole clusterfuck like Germany circa 1945 is to be woefully ignorant of history.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.